04/07/13 - Gifts from God
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Genesis 9:3 (KJV)
This says a couple of things -
God gave us animals to use as food as well as plants. So eat your meat boys and girls. You were designed that way. Both of these wonderful resources have many more uses than just food and nutrition. Animals are also used to make clothing, makeup and many other things.
Plants are also used in clothing, medicine, spirits, building materials, fuels... all sorts of stuff. I don't think He ruled out the pleasure of smoking some of them either for those whom it suits well.
All that said, we are the care-takers of this planet. So use these God-given resources wisely and responsibly.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Manipulation through Taxation
We've heard the term, "taxation without representation" or, "no taxation without representation"... Well, I am presenting to you today what taxation has evolved into over the past 200 years. Manipulation.
Any time we see a person or a business getting a "tax break" for conforming to a certain standard or a "tax penalty" for not conforming, we must ask ourselves the question, "what is the original purpose of taxes?"
I was always under the impression that the purpose of taxes was to fund our government so that they have the necessary resources to provide the services that they were created to provide in order to keep us citizens safe from our enemies, foreign and domestic. Well,, that was pretty much it originally, though the services have grown exponentially (and extremely invasive) over the past 100 years, that's another topic for another day. Let's stick with the purpose of taxes being to provide us American with government services.
How does a tax break for being married support the purpose of funding the services government provides?
How does a tax break for green energy companies support the purpose of funding the services government provides?
How does a tax break for oil companies support the purpose of funding the services government provides?
Why should anyone get a penalty in the form of of higher taxes for smoking cigarettes? (I know the answer to this one: because the government uses tax dollars to provide health care for the smokers when their choice to smoke made them sick - AND to do a bunch of research, much of which is bogus - on cigarettes and health)
When it comes down to it, taxes today are more of a tool used to manipulate the populace than anything else.
This needs to stop. We need tax reform and we need it now.
No one should have to payer a larger percentage of his income to the government than anyone else. People talk about equality all the time. Usually it comes from those who feel they are being treated less equal than others. Seldom do we see someone paying very little taxes complaining that the want equality in taxation.
They use the term "fair share" instead because "equality" would mean everyone gets treated the same, and when it comes to pitching in for services provided, well, some folks truly believe it's not fair that everyone contribute.
You want equality?
Same percentage across the board for every single person who has an income.
Zero tax breaks for anything.
Zero tax penalties for anything.
Zero taxes on businesses (you want to see a bunch of companies race to this country and start hiring people? Do this!) - Businesses already contribute to the taxes with each person they put on their payroll and every product they produce. Any additional tax on business is a double-tax and is therefore a tax penalty.
That, my friends is equality.
Any time we see a person or a business getting a "tax break" for conforming to a certain standard or a "tax penalty" for not conforming, we must ask ourselves the question, "what is the original purpose of taxes?"
I was always under the impression that the purpose of taxes was to fund our government so that they have the necessary resources to provide the services that they were created to provide in order to keep us citizens safe from our enemies, foreign and domestic. Well,, that was pretty much it originally, though the services have grown exponentially (and extremely invasive) over the past 100 years, that's another topic for another day. Let's stick with the purpose of taxes being to provide us American with government services.
How does a tax break for being married support the purpose of funding the services government provides?
How does a tax break for green energy companies support the purpose of funding the services government provides?
How does a tax break for oil companies support the purpose of funding the services government provides?
Why should anyone get a penalty in the form of of higher taxes for smoking cigarettes? (I know the answer to this one: because the government uses tax dollars to provide health care for the smokers when their choice to smoke made them sick - AND to do a bunch of research, much of which is bogus - on cigarettes and health)
When it comes down to it, taxes today are more of a tool used to manipulate the populace than anything else.
This needs to stop. We need tax reform and we need it now.
No one should have to payer a larger percentage of his income to the government than anyone else. People talk about equality all the time. Usually it comes from those who feel they are being treated less equal than others. Seldom do we see someone paying very little taxes complaining that the want equality in taxation.
They use the term "fair share" instead because "equality" would mean everyone gets treated the same, and when it comes to pitching in for services provided, well, some folks truly believe it's not fair that everyone contribute.
You want equality?
Same percentage across the board for every single person who has an income.
Zero tax breaks for anything.
Zero tax penalties for anything.
Zero taxes on businesses (you want to see a bunch of companies race to this country and start hiring people? Do this!) - Businesses already contribute to the taxes with each person they put on their payroll and every product they produce. Any additional tax on business is a double-tax and is therefore a tax penalty.
That, my friends is equality.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Taking the Lord's Name in Vain
What does it mean to that the Lord's name in vain? Most seem to think it's using His name in conjunction with a swear word - which is true, but that's not all there is to it. I've observed many Christians who refuse to say "Godda####" or "Jesus Christ" as an exclamation. They say that is taking the Lord's name in vain. It is. But many of those same people will also say, "oh my god!" with no hesitation... yet they won't say, "jesus christ" in the same way. Even though they believe (correctly) that God and Jesus are One.
I'm telling you today, that using God's name in any way other than directly speaking to Him or about Him is the same as using His name with a swear word or using "jesus christ" as an exclamation. Exactly the same.
The Third Commandment concerns the sanctity of God’s name. We are commanded by God to honor and respect His name: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7
).
"Vain" means empty, useless, false, unreal, and worthless. In short, taking God’s name in vain refers to the abuse, misuse, blasphemy, cursing, or manipulation of the Lord’s name.
According to The New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, the term "to honor" means "to treat with significance." To treat something with significance is the opposite of taking something "in vain."
So, use of God’s name in vain involves:
I'm telling you today, that using God's name in any way other than directly speaking to Him or about Him is the same as using His name with a swear word or using "jesus christ" as an exclamation. Exactly the same.
The Third Commandment concerns the sanctity of God’s name. We are commanded by God to honor and respect His name: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7
).
"Vain" means empty, useless, false, unreal, and worthless. In short, taking God’s name in vain refers to the abuse, misuse, blasphemy, cursing, or manipulation of the Lord’s name.
According to The New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, the term "to honor" means "to treat with significance." To treat something with significance is the opposite of taking something "in vain."
So, use of God’s name in vain involves:
- Trivializing His name by looking at it as being insignificant. "oh my god", "oh god", "god, that movie was great.". These are all examples of taking the Lord's name in vain. Think about it. Would you substitute "jesus christ" for the word "god" in any of these phrases?
- Using His name with profanity or blasphemy is an obvious violation of the 3rd Commandment.
One of the rules around our home (and we have very few) is that we don't take the Lord's name in vain. I personally do not get offended by other swear words and sometimes there is a place for them. After all, those who don't swear at all, simply substitute other words for them, but the meaning is the same, so to me, they might as well say what they mean. The way I phrase the rule when my kids' friends are in the house and I hear them violating the 3rd commandment is this: "We don't take the Lord's name in vain in this house. Unless you're talking directly about Him or to Him, leave Him out of the conversation. If you must swear, be real. Fuck and shit are OK. They don't involve the Lord, and they really don't offend me or anyone else who lives here, but using His name disrespectfully is not OK. Don't do it" - Before you get all bent on that last few sentences, my kids are 20 and 25.
Friday, January 13, 2012
ZERO Corporate taxes
I think corporations already do their fair share of contributing to the system without paying a corporate tax: They hire people, all of whom pay taxes on their income, not to mention all those people buy things locally. The business pays taxes on everything it uses, from utilities all the way to property taxes... and there's much more. Taxing them for being a corporation is just a double taxation AND it encourages them to do business elsewhere. If there were ZERO corporate taxes in America, we would not have companies looking to relocate and hire people in other countries.
Monday, December 26, 2011
The pay of a servant.
The average income for a single earner in the US is just under $50k/ year. I think all members of Congress, senate, State Governors, the President... All government employees who are part of the Legislative, Judicial or Executive branches should be allowed to make what the average single-person income was the previous year. This would motivate our leadership in this country to not hinder job creation. It also just makes sense. These people will all tell you they have a heart to serve. It's time they put their money where their mouth is.
They also should be on the same retirement program most of us regular folks are on also... 401K + Social Security...
They also should be on the same retirement program most of us regular folks are on also... 401K + Social Security...
Friday, December 23, 2011
Health Care
The more people I talk to in the health care industry, the more I'm convinced that everyone needs insurance - or a way to pay for their own care. But I'm still not convinced that taxpayers should foot the bill. Here's the problem: They already do and have for the past God knows how long...
Mandating insurance is not unreasonable as long as there are hospitals that cannot turn away folks who cannot pay. Most states mandate auto insurance and that seems to work out pretty well. the difference is taxpayers aren't mandated to pay for auto insurance for those who cannot afford it.
Here's my solution: Indentured Servitude.
Now, before you get all bent out of shape, hear me out... This is a perfectly reasonable solution and allows for personal accountability on the part of the patient and a way for an honest day's work to be rewarded with an honest day's wage (for the doctors and hospitals), without burdening those who are not even involved in the situation (the taxpayers).
1.) Eliminate all government sponsored health care or aid to for anyone under 65
2.) Allow private parties to be "insurers" for those who cannot afford it. What these parties will do if put up the money for the doctor bills for anyone who chooses not to get insurance or who cannot or chooses not to pay for medical care. The patient's bill get paid by these "insurers" and the patient is then indebted to the insurer. Basically, this is insurance for the doctors (the ones performing the service) that they will be paid. The patient and insurer enter into an agreement as to how the patient will repay the one paying his bill. That can be an agreed upon payment system, it could be done with labor (indentured servitude). This could work out very well for both parties in cases where they patient is unemployed, since he or she would have time to work off the bill so to speak.
There insurers could have contracts with companies to hire their indentured servants and pay the insurers. This sort of thing could even work out to become regular employment for some who do great work if they are hiring later on once their debt is paid off.
Maybe not a perfect solution, and I know I've left out plenty of details, but I think the idea is fair for everyone. It also gets the government out of healthcare which means that prices would drop. Before government involvement in this industry, prices were competitive and average people could afford regular doctor visits without the need for insurance.
I have not addressed malpractice lawsuits, which is an entirely separate matter, but if something was done about getting this under control prices would drop even more.
Doctors deserve to be paid well. They spend a minimum of 7 years and usually hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the education they need to do their jobs. Their insurance is extremely expensive because of lawsuits. A doctor making less than 100k/year wouldn't be able to stay in business after paying to be insured against lawsuits. Many of which are frivolous...
Mandating insurance is not unreasonable as long as there are hospitals that cannot turn away folks who cannot pay. Most states mandate auto insurance and that seems to work out pretty well. the difference is taxpayers aren't mandated to pay for auto insurance for those who cannot afford it.
Here's my solution: Indentured Servitude.
Now, before you get all bent out of shape, hear me out... This is a perfectly reasonable solution and allows for personal accountability on the part of the patient and a way for an honest day's work to be rewarded with an honest day's wage (for the doctors and hospitals), without burdening those who are not even involved in the situation (the taxpayers).
1.) Eliminate all government sponsored health care or aid to for anyone under 65
2.) Allow private parties to be "insurers" for those who cannot afford it. What these parties will do if put up the money for the doctor bills for anyone who chooses not to get insurance or who cannot or chooses not to pay for medical care. The patient's bill get paid by these "insurers" and the patient is then indebted to the insurer. Basically, this is insurance for the doctors (the ones performing the service) that they will be paid. The patient and insurer enter into an agreement as to how the patient will repay the one paying his bill. That can be an agreed upon payment system, it could be done with labor (indentured servitude). This could work out very well for both parties in cases where they patient is unemployed, since he or she would have time to work off the bill so to speak.
There insurers could have contracts with companies to hire their indentured servants and pay the insurers. This sort of thing could even work out to become regular employment for some who do great work if they are hiring later on once their debt is paid off.
Maybe not a perfect solution, and I know I've left out plenty of details, but I think the idea is fair for everyone. It also gets the government out of healthcare which means that prices would drop. Before government involvement in this industry, prices were competitive and average people could afford regular doctor visits without the need for insurance.
I have not addressed malpractice lawsuits, which is an entirely separate matter, but if something was done about getting this under control prices would drop even more.
Doctors deserve to be paid well. They spend a minimum of 7 years and usually hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the education they need to do their jobs. Their insurance is extremely expensive because of lawsuits. A doctor making less than 100k/year wouldn't be able to stay in business after paying to be insured against lawsuits. Many of which are frivolous...
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Feelings vs Truth
What's more important, that what we say doesn't hurt any feelings? Or that what we say is the truth?
Often the two collide and one or the other will be said, but not both.
I'm on the worship team at my church - in fact, I am the team leader. Ultimately, it is my decision if we bring on another team member as a substitute or simply an addition to the band. (Although I do let the entire team decide mostly).
One of the aspects of being a musician is the desire for quality music, or at least that everyone play the same thing and be somewhat in tune. I seem to be the only one on the team who can tell someone that they don't sound good when that is the case. There are a few folks on the team who just want everyone who has the desire to be able to play. No matter how confused, noisy or off-key we are, to them, the music apparently doesn't matter. It's all about making everyone feel good and feel included in the team.
That just doesn't work for me. I want our music tight, clean and pretty. Therefore, I am looked at an an inconsiderate jerk when I tell someone that we have enough people on the team right now or that they need to practice up a bit before they get to play on Sunday morning.
Am I just a jerk? Or should quality matter when we are presenting our talents before the Lord?
My thinking is also that if someone really doesn't play well and no one tells them that for fear of hurting feelings, then they'll probably continue to not play well. It's also dishonest to sacrifice the truth for their feelings.
Often the two collide and one or the other will be said, but not both.
I'm on the worship team at my church - in fact, I am the team leader. Ultimately, it is my decision if we bring on another team member as a substitute or simply an addition to the band. (Although I do let the entire team decide mostly).
One of the aspects of being a musician is the desire for quality music, or at least that everyone play the same thing and be somewhat in tune. I seem to be the only one on the team who can tell someone that they don't sound good when that is the case. There are a few folks on the team who just want everyone who has the desire to be able to play. No matter how confused, noisy or off-key we are, to them, the music apparently doesn't matter. It's all about making everyone feel good and feel included in the team.
That just doesn't work for me. I want our music tight, clean and pretty. Therefore, I am looked at an an inconsiderate jerk when I tell someone that we have enough people on the team right now or that they need to practice up a bit before they get to play on Sunday morning.
Am I just a jerk? Or should quality matter when we are presenting our talents before the Lord?
My thinking is also that if someone really doesn't play well and no one tells them that for fear of hurting feelings, then they'll probably continue to not play well. It's also dishonest to sacrifice the truth for their feelings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)