Christianity QA

Question:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:11363-427EA37A-327@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net… > Dang…so privayization is way for the rich to get rcher and for our > federalist government to desert the poor.

the median family income is $45,000 per year.  i believe those people, the lower middle, middle, and upper middle would all benefit from partial privatization. m.

Response:

"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don’t Bot…@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in message news:0zcfe.12692$eU.7280@twister.nyroc.rr.com > All those faith-based initiatives to help the poor will go nowhere > because there are so few poor devout Republicans?

Last update: May 8, 2005 at 9:11 AM Most faith-based grants went to the usual groups Kevin Diaz,  Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent May 8, 2005 WASHINGTON, D.C. — Since the White House’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives started a neighborhood-level grant program over a year ago, more than $730,000 has flowed to dozens of grass-roots poverty groups in Minnesota that never got federal funds before. Still, according to numbers just released by the White House, the new money is but a small part of the $18.5 million in federal grants that went last year to 36 traditional church-affiliated charities in Minnesota, many of which have been getting federal money for decades. Of that, less than 5 percent went to non-Christian faith groups, much of it in grants to Jewish Family and Children’s Services and Elim Transitional Housing. Moreover, much of the money that the White House characterizes as faith-based went to charities such as Lutheran Social Service, Catholic Charities and other large organizations that say their government funding had nothing to do with the White House’s initiative. The White House report counts grants made by seven federal agencies to groups with religious names or affiliations. But in some cases, the groups do not consider their social service contracts — for programs such as housing and HIV/AIDS prevention — to be "faith-based." Some traditional church-affiliated social service providers say the faith-based initiative might even have cost them money, as the White House reaches out to smaller, community-based groups. "There has been very little new money," said Gary Reierson, president of the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches, which works with small religious and community groups such as St. James African Methodist Episcopal Church in south Minneapolis, which got a $7,400 grant last year for its prison ministry program. "It was a big deal for us, because we’re so small," said the Rev. Marchelle Hallman, pastor of St. James, Minnesota’s oldest black church. But the overall distribution of money to church-affiliated groups in Minnesota shows how far the White House has to go to fulfill two basic promises made by President Bush: that the faith-based initiative would reach "beyond those great, courageous faith-based programs," such as the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, and that "the faith-based initiative is not about a single faith." White House officials call the program a success, even if Congress has snagged on the issue of church-state separation, which has kept Minnesota’s best-known practitioner of religious charity, Mary Jo Copeland, out of the hunt for federal money. "I don’t like to take the government restrictions that come with it," said Copeland, whose Sharing and Caring Hands shelter in Minneapolis has been cited by Bush as a model for private, faith-based compassion. Nationally, federal funding for groups with religious affiliations reached $2 billion last year, up from $1.2 billion the year before. Minnesota’s $18.5 million represents an increase of 35 percent over 2003. But at the same time, traditional faith-based charities, which provide the bulk of services performed by faith groups in Minnesota, say the White House initiative to increase funding for faith groups has made little difference to them. For example, a number of Lutheran Social Service agencies in Minnesota received a total of $1.5 million last year, according to the White House. Much of the money went to programs such as street outreach, HIV/AIDS prevention and transitional living centers. "What’s peculiar is to reframe that as faith-based-initiative money," said Mark Peterson, president and CEO of Lutheran Social Service, the state’s largest religiously affiliated charity. Catholic Charities of Minneapolis and St. Paul received nearly $1.3 million in federal grants last year. But despite "the initial excitement and buzz," none of it came from the White House’s faith-based grant program, according to spokeswoman Mary Beth Hanson. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, with 45 senior centers in Minnesota, got more than $4.4 million for a new housing complex in Inver Grove Heights, the largest allotment in the state. Do we receive money because we’re a faith-based organization? Probably not," said spokesman Mark Dickerson. "It’s because we’re the nation’s largest not-for-profit organization providing senior housing and long-term care," he said. Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said that’s as it should be. "The president wants the focus to be on results, not religion," he said. Towey, who was once Mother Teresa’s lawyer, said it would be unconstitutional to grant money based on faith affiliation alone. Nor can it be used for religious purposes. The thrust of the White House effort, he said, has been simply not to exclude social service providers because of their religious identities. That means removing barriers to a lot of small groups such as St. James church in south Minneapolis. "You’re seeing a lot of new players beginning to break through," Towey said. Much of the new faith-based money in Minnesota has gone though the Minnesota Council of Churches, one of only 10 "intermediary" organizations in the nation that coordinate "compassion capital" grants to first-time recipients. This year the council has announced $387,500 in grants to 31 Twin Cities groups. Last May the council channeled $342,600 to 40 groups, many of them interdenominational or secular community groups. Of that, a bit less than $30,000 went to non-Christian faith groups, including Masjid An-Nur, an Islamic organization that runs a health group in north Minneapolis, and a nutritional awareness program sponsored by Kenesseth Israel, a Jewish congregation in St. Louis Park. Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., who helped put Copeland onto the national stage with Bush, says that while he’d like to see the faith-based grants spread out across a wider spectrum, it’s been a good start. "At the very least, we’re finally ending discrimination against people of faith who help people in need," he said. "I think that’s a huge accomplishment."

Response:

So…… If I make 60,000 a year my social security checks will be way high under Bush’s program. And if I’m poor ….. Republican policy is clearly to alienate the poor from the rich. His destruction of social programs, over burdening the cities like with the unfunded no child left behind program so their social programs will hard stressed, and his various wars taxing the budget while he gives away tax money to the rich. Now he is planning to highlight the haves from the havenots by this "privitization’ of social security. It sounds like desertion to me, not privatization. One thing abot Bush, he’s following the identical recipe we followed in Viet-Nam. But he’s doing it much faster. Of course his unconscious intent is to destroy our political unity as a nation. Its just screams at me that this is being done on purpose. Dang…so privayization is way for the rich to get rcher and for our federalist government to desert the poor.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Nftfe.10288$BE3.3481@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > On 9/11, the world changed that day, it will never be the same for a long > time to come.  The stock market is not the same as years ago.  But I’ve > heard that the average American these days is putting any money they can > get their hands on into the market.  Not me. > The stock market is evolving into something like a farm where you get > plants growing some and then you harvest them when they grow high.  And > then next year they start out growing low and grow high and then you > harvest your yields again.  So your 401(k) plan is really more like > somebody else’s little farm that they harvest the money as you work hard > and continually add to it.

It bears repeating: Too many people in the stock market are speculators. They want to buy shares, wait a few weeks for them to go up a couple of dollars, then dump them for a quick profit.  If I had money to buy stocks, I’d buy them as true investments, which means for the long term.  I would buy shares only in companies that do something I believed in or that I had some kind of connection to (such as the bank where I have personal accounts).  I would attend shareholder meetings, review financial statements, keep track of senior officers and directors and what they do, study the sales and supply chains, etc.  If enough people who own a stock do those things, the share price is almost guaranteed to grow.  If people don’t give a shit about the actual company they’re investing in, the share price will go up and down like a yoyo. Miki

Response:

On 9/11, the world changed that day, it will never be the same for a long time to come.  The stock market is not the same as years ago.  But I’ve heard that the average American these days is putting any money they can get their hands on into the market.  Not me. The stock market is evolving into something like a farm where you get plants growing some and then you harvest them when they grow high.  And then next year they start out growing low and grow high and then you harvest your yields again.  So your 401(k) plan is really more like somebody else’s little farm that they harvest the money as you work hard and continually add to it. "gravity" <grav…@example.net> wrote in message

news:427d874b_1@x-privat.org… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don’t Bot…@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in > message news:zCffe.12715$eU.11720@twister.nyroc.rr.com… >> "Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:89ffe.10497$HL2.5859@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >> > I’ve come to believe that the stock market investment has a long >> > history of being excellent over the long-term and you can even just >> > about predict what your money will do over 30 years based on past >> > trends, but one thing has changed all of that– and that’s 9/11. >> And Xerox’s stock fell 90% in 2-3 years and all the workers’ there had to > invest >> in Xerox and no place else with their pension system. So you’ve got > hundreds of >> thousands of workers invested in a stock that tanked and they had no way > out. >> They lost their jobs and their retirement. > apparently they are having trouble paying the money, and have been taken > to > court.  it’s called a cash-balance pension plan. > i worked for one place with a partially matched 401k.  i should have taken > advantage of it.   i have made some bad investment decisions. > m.

Response:

"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don’t Bot…@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in message news:zCffe.12715$eU.11720@twister.nyroc.rr.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:89ffe.10497$HL2.5859@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net > > I’ve come to believe that the stock market investment has a long > > history of being excellent over the long-term and you can even just > > about predict what your money will do over 30 years based on past > > trends, but one thing has changed all of that– and that’s 9/11. > And Xerox’s stock fell 90% in 2-3 years and all the workers’ there had to invest > in Xerox and no place else with their pension system. So you’ve got hundreds of > thousands of workers invested in a stock that tanked and they had no way out. > They lost their jobs and their retirement.

apparently they are having trouble paying the money, and have been taken to court.  it’s called a cash-balance pension plan. i worked for one place with a partially matched 401k.  i should have taken advantage of it.   i have made some bad investment decisions. m.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:89ffe.10497$HL2.5859@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net > I’ve come to believe that the stock market investment has a long > history of being excellent over the long-term and you can even just > about predict what your money will do over 30 years based on past > trends, but one thing has changed all of that– and that’s 9/11.

And Xerox’s stock fell 90% in 2-3 years and all the workers’ there had to invest in Xerox and no place else with their pension system. So you’ve got hundreds of thousands of workers invested in a stock that tanked and they had no way out. They lost their jobs and their retirement.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:j1ffe.10072$BE3.8893@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > Yes, he may say he only wants to convert 2% to the stock market and that’s > the best he can do right now, BUT the bottom line Bush has about Social > Security is that the government has no business running a national > retirement plan.

i’m not sure how Bush feels about it.  it’s been an American institution for decades.  it would be impossible to totally get rid of it, no?  would take centuries. a partial privitization would help me in the long run, if i work my whole life.  a partial socialization would help me if i become disabled.  i like to hedge my bets.  ;-) i don’t want to see homeless old people.  that would be very bad.  a lot of people make big financial blunders or become spendthrifts.  they need the SS money.  on the other hand, some old people do reverse mortages and get into big credit card debt.  no amount of SS will help them if they are that far under.  (just declare bankruptcy!) i may or may not work the rest of my life, so i dunno how policy changes will affect me personally.  some degree of humility is needed, as even the mightiest can fall. m.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:89ffe.10497$HL2.5859@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net… > I’ve come to believe that the stock market investment has a long history of > being excellent over the long-term and you can even just about predict what > your money will do over 30 years based on past trends, but one thing has > changed all of that– and that’s 9/11.

did you track the numbers from 10 years before to 4 years after 9/11? everyone (and i do mean everyone) feels the stock market is for long term investments.  pointing out figures from 2002 or even 2004 is hardly damning. i’ll pull up the DJIA and S&P and post the figures tomorrow. m.

Response:

"gravity" <grav…@example.net> wrote in message

news:427d7fe2_1@x-privat.org… > did you track the numbers from 10 years before to 4 years after 9/11? > everyone (and i do mean everyone) feels the stock market is for long term > investments.  pointing out figures from 2002 or even 2004 is hardly damning. > i’ll pull up the DJIA and S&P and post the figures tomorrow.

i retract this post. m.

Response:

I’ve come to believe that the stock market investment has a long history of being excellent over the long-term and you can even just about predict what your money will do over 30 years based on past trends, but one thing has changed all of that– and that’s 9/11. "gravity" <grav…@example.net> wrote in message

news:427d7bd1_1@x-privat.org… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:8pdfe.10042$BE3.6177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… >> Our government is actually about 20% a socialist system and about 80% >> free >> enterprise. > well said.  i agree no system (or good system) is 100% socialist or 100% > free enterprise.  even Thomas Jefferson warned about the problems with > banks > and companies in charge of all the money.  (Chomsky stated this in an > essay. > i haven’t confirmed the exact quote.). > the summary of Bush’s plan (as i see it) is that around 1/3 of the current > SS figure would be privatized.  the end result of partial privatization is > staggering: > "Advocates of privatization have long criticized Social Security for lower > returns than the returns available from other investments, and cite > numbers > based on historical performance. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative > think tank, calculates that a 40 year old male with an income just under > $60,000, will contribute $284,360 in payroll taxes to the Trust Fund over > his working life, and can expect to receive $2208 per month under the > current program. They claim that the same 40 year old male, investing the > same $284,360 equally weighted into treasuries and high-grade corporate > bonds over his working life, would own a PRA at retirement worth $904,982 > and paying an annuity of up to $7372 per month." > i can believe these figures as one of my funds increased 40% in 18 months. > 7 to 10% apr is quite common. > source: wikipedia > m.

Response:

Yes, he may say he only wants to convert 2% to the stock market and that’s the best he can do right now, BUT the bottom line Bush has about Social Security is that the government has no business running a national retirement plan. "gravity" <grav…@example.net> wrote in message

news:427d7a5a_1@x-privat.org… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:8pdfe.10042$BE3.6177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… >> help from your family and church unless you were carrying a private >> disability policy.  And of course, having a national health care system >> would be the last thing Bush would want to do because it would increase > the >> 20% to 25% or so.  The bottom line Bush has about Social Security is that >> the government has no business running a national retirement plan. > ok, i found some partial answers.  SS and Medicare currently take out > 15.2% > of a check (1/2 employer side, 1/2 employee side).  this is mainly or > wholly > on the first $90,000 of income (i.e. the average reader of alt.sup.sz > would > pay this figure).  Bush’s plan is to take 4 percentage points of the > paycheck and put that into privatization.  some countries already have a > partially or wholly privatized system e.g. United Kingdom, Sweden, Chile. > Social Security didn’t used to take out as much.  it was initally 2% of > the > first $3,000 earned.  so FDR has little to do with the current figure. > sources: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_%28United_States%29 > m.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:8pdfe.10042$BE3.6177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > Our government is actually about 20% a socialist system and about 80% free > enterprise.

well said.  i agree no system (or good system) is 100% socialist or 100% free enterprise.  even Thomas Jefferson warned about the problems with banks and companies in charge of all the money.  (Chomsky stated this in an essay. i haven’t confirmed the exact quote.). the summary of Bush’s plan (as i see it) is that around 1/3 of the current SS figure would be privatized.  the end result of partial privatization is staggering: "Advocates of privatization have long criticized Social Security for lower returns than the returns available from other investments, and cite numbers based on historical performance. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, calculates that a 40 year old male with an income just under $60,000, will contribute $284,360 in payroll taxes to the Trust Fund over his working life, and can expect to receive $2208 per month under the current program. They claim that the same 40 year old male, investing the same $284,360 equally weighted into treasuries and high-grade corporate bonds over his working life, would own a PRA at retirement worth $904,982 and paying an annuity of up to $7372 per month." i can believe these figures as one of my funds increased 40% in 18 months. 7 to 10% apr is quite common. source: wikipedia m.

Response:

i guess i should ask a question.  when Bush said 2% or so, i thought he meant of the total SS money withdrawn from the paycheck.  but he may mean 2% as in 1/3 plus of the 7.25%. i will do some Googling. m.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:8pdfe.10042$BE3.6177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > help from your family and church unless you were carrying a private > disability policy.  And of course, having a national health care system > would be the last thing Bush would want to do because it would increase the > 20% to 25% or so.  The bottom line Bush has about Social Security is that > the government has no business running a national retirement plan.

ok, i found some partial answers.  SS and Medicare currently take out 15.2% of a check (1/2 employer side, 1/2 employee side).  this is mainly or wholly on the first $90,000 of income (i.e. the average reader of alt.sup.sz would pay this figure).  Bush’s plan is to take 4 percentage points of the paycheck and put that into privatization.  some countries already have a partially or wholly privatized system e.g. United Kingdom, Sweden, Chile. Social Security didn’t used to take out as much.  it was initally 2% of the first $3,000 earned.  so FDR has little to do with the current figure. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_%28United_States%29 m.

Response:

"Just Me" <thecli…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:8pdfe.10042$BE3.6177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > help from your family and church unless you were carrying a private > disability policy.  And of course, having a national health care system > would be the last thing Bush would want to do because it would increase the > 20% to 25% or so.  The bottom line Bush has about Social Security is that > the government has no business running a national retirement plan.

FDR said, "they’ll never get rid of this" or something similar.  it’s so tied into salary and retirement that it can’t be privatized for decades.  i believe Bush’s plan is to privatize a small portion like 2%.  now 2% may well turn into a big pile of cash, but you’ll still have 98% going into traditional social security.  the reason the 2% is so valuable is that the S&P increases at a rate of about 7%.  good investments can mean a return of 10% or more.  someone like me who is young and likes the idea of stocks would come out very well.  other people may not like the "partial" privatization. anyone have specifics on Bush’s plan (e.g. 2% figure)? m.

Response:

Our government is actually about 20% a socialist system and about 80% free enterprise.  We aren’t 100% free enterprise and I think when Russia was communist, it wasn’t 100% communist either.  I guess you could say that Bush and his party want to shrink down that 20% that’s socialist and the Democrats want to keep it the same or add just a little.  I don’t think that many Americans realize that we are 20% socialism. In the socialist society, the government would be allowed to run a retirement plan for all citizens, a public plan.  And have programs for the poor, especially woman and children.  If America was 100% free enterprise, we’d have none of those.  You would have to get your retirement plan from Mutual of Omaha or similar.  And if you were disabled, you would have to get help from your family and church unless you were carrying a private disability policy.  And of course, having a national health care system would be the last thing Bush would want to do because it would increase the 20% to 25% or so.  The bottom line Bush has about Social Security is that the government has no business running a national retirement plan. "gravity" <grav…@example.net> wrote in message

news:427d5866_1@x-privat.org… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Cymbal Man Freq." <Don’t Bot…@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in > message news:0zcfe.12692$eU.7280@twister.nyroc.rr.com… >> All those faith-based initiatives to help the poor will go nowhere >> because > there >> are so few poor devout Republicans? > anyone who uses social programs would have trouble being an honest > Republican.  it’s hard to be poor and avoid social programs. > m.

Response:

All those faith-based initiatives to help the poor will go nowhere because there are so few poor devout Republicans?

Response:

"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don’t Bot…@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in message news:0zcfe.12692$eU.7280@twister.nyroc.rr.com… > All those faith-based initiatives to help the poor will go nowhere because there > are so few poor devout Republicans?

anyone who uses social programs would have trouble being an honest Republican.  it’s hard to be poor and avoid social programs. m.

Response:

So if a Republican gets caught committing fraud in a gov’t program, they can plead insanity because of their religious & political beliefs?

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:10519-427D0521-6@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net… > Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an > effort to kick out congregants who didn’t support President Bush.

i wouldn’t want to be a part of any political party (or Church) that would have me as a member. most Baptists aren’t that conservative. m.

Response:

MSNBC The Associated Press WAYNESVILLE, N.C. – Some in Pastor Chan Chandler’s flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn’t support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte. "He’s the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. "He’s real negative all the time." Chandler didn’t return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated. The station also reported that 40 others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday’s vote. During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton. Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said. George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church’s bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership. "Membership is a local church issue," he said. "It is not something the state convention would enter into." He added that the nine members were not legally terminated because Monday’s meeting was supposed to be a deacons meeting, not a business meeting. They have a lawyer looking into the situation, he said. The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church’s tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president. "If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Chairman Jerry Meek said. Doris Wilson, one of Chandler’s neighbors and a member of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, said God doesn’t play partisan politics. "I hate to see the church suffer like that," she said. "God doesn’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. It just hurts to see that going on."

Response:

Related Posts