The Financial Crisis Congress Doesn't Want You to Understand
by Candice Watters on 09/25/2008 at 9:42 AM
Just yesterday I was asking Steve, "do you understand this financial crisis?"
It wasn't a very long conversation as I was in the middle of a typically busy day of caring for the kids, who tend to interrupt our every attempt at in-depth conversation, and Steve was equally busy working to be sure we have the money at the end of the month to pay all our bills. You know, just basic adult responsibility stuff.
News coming out of Wall Street and Congress all seems too complicated to really comprehend. Good thing the experts are in charge to clean up this mess! But then this morning, I saw this very helpful summation of what happened. From Tony Woodlief's Sand in the Gears blog:
For those of you who lack the advanced financial expertise necessary to decipher news surrounding the current mess, I’ve interviewed an expert to help us make sense of the headlines.
Q: How did we get into this mess?
A: Two entities created and overseen by Congress, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, flooded the mortgage market with cheap, taxpayer-backed money. Plus millions of Americans accepted the crazy idea that it’s okay to finance more house than you can really afford, using 95/5 and even 99/1 mortgages. It was a toxic mix of incompetence and greed.
Q: Doesn’t Wall Street have some culpability here?
A: Didn’t you hear that part about incompetence and greed? Besides, “Wall Street” is an abstraction. It’s kind of like The Force in Star Wars, or . . .
Q: Congressional oversight?
A: Exactly.
Q: What’s the government’s plan to fix this mess?
A: They’re going to buy all the troubled assets, and then create lots of rules that give them more authority to oversee financial institutions.
Q: You mean oversight like the kind that encouraged Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to back millions of housing equivalents of the Bridge to Nowhere?
A: You got it.
Q: How does the average American get in on this “buying of troubled assets” deal?
A: It’s simple: you either need to be the overpaid CEO of a firm that stupidly overleveraged itself in marginal mortgages and their derivatives, or one of those home speculators who bought three houses in Florida hoping to flip them, and is now claiming to have been misled, abused, etc.
Q: What about those of us who only bought a house we could afford, and have been working diligently to make payments?
A: Well, you’ll have to work a little harder to bail out the rest of us.
Q: It sounds like we’re rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent.
A: Welcome to Washington.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even the founders knew such corruption was not only possible, but likely. As far back as 1897, we had this warning:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. -- Alexander Tyler (A Scottish professor)
And even before that, Thomas Paine said:
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute. -- Rights of Man, 1791
1. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:49 AM on Sep 25:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote...
The Ruling of the Mob?
2. Texas Craig said the following at 10:06 AM on Sep 25:
Candice:
There is a simple explanation for this situation. It is called sin. It is the same thing that causes civil wars, crime, etc. It is in our DNA and it will continue to crop up everywhere. Right now, it has cropped up in the form of financial ruin arising in part, on the fraud of individuals - both consumers who bought more house than they can afford, mortgage brokers who signed off on and supported loans that never would meet any reasonable financial standards, lenders who wanted to make more money, and a government that wanted to see more houses bought. All of these things worked together to create this problem. But, the root is easy - sin. Greed and selfishness and materialism. And, its not going away. The question is how best to deal with it, and that is what was discussed at length on the "Bulls and Bears and Bailouts" blog on this site.
3. Reid said the following at 10:07 AM on Sep 25:
Hmm. I'm sure all the readers here realize that the alternative to "rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent" is, through the abrupt collapse of lending institutions, the future inability of business and individuals to invest in, well, anything? Which alternative is really more market-friendly?
4. Marc said the following at 11:58 AM on Sep 25:
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for pulling no punches and taking Washington, D.C., behind proverbial woodshed and giving them a much-deserved whooping.
I'm not perfect, but I do try to live within my means (most of the time, I succeed). To me, it's simple: If you live beyond your means, you will eventually feel the hurt.
See, this is why I do not believe in the American Dream. First and foremost, you can have a nice house and nice cars/trucks and the whole nine-yards, but without Christ, you're lost. Second, even if the American Dream was legitimate, we have turned this so-called dream into nothing more than greed and a horrid version of "keeping up with the Joneses".
I'm not saying it's a sin to have a nice house, nice cars/trucks, etc. In order to do that, however, you need to SAVE MONEY!!!! And if you do take-out a loan (which should be the very-very-very-very-last-resort), read the entire agreement, not just everything short of the Fine Print.
Finally, I'm a little wary of the average-joe saying that they were taken advantage of; that they unknowingly went into a shady loan agreement. While this perhaps may be true for some, I honestly believe most of these accusations are people's way of not taking responsibility for their greed and short-sightedness.
5. John said the following at 11:59 AM on Sep 25:
And the best way to minimize the impact of sin financially is...FREE ENTERPRISE!
NOT more regulation.
This started with the CRA. It will end in the USSA.
I'm gonna go default on my loan now and see how much of a bail out I can get.
6. Kevin said the following at 12:54 PM on Sep 25:
I hate how this government and big business are all about the short-term, temporary solution. This bailout isn't a long-term solution. Drilling for more oil along the coast isn't a long term solution. The thing that people hate to hear is how the long-term solutions come with short-term sacrifices (temporarily higher gas prices, temporarily recessed economy, etc) but in the end would make our country so much better off. It's so stupid. The reason that changes which would bring awsome long-term solutions don't end up growing is because big, greedy businesses, especially energy companies (oil, coal) overpower them with money, propaganda, and lies. Texas Craig, you are absolutely right. It is pure greed that has caused this economic problem, as well as many others. It's sick.
7. Colin said the following at 1:44 PM on Sep 25:
Reid #3,
It might cause our current lending institutions to collapse, that's true. But, that's why we have a free market: so that new lending institutions (which will hopefully learn from our current financiers' mistakes) will rise up.
8. DannieA said the following at 1:49 PM on Sep 25:
It would be nice to get the economy stabalized though....what would any alternate suggestions be?
9. ptschett said the following at 4:14 PM on Sep 25:
The Alexander Tyler quote is interesting... no one's quite figured out http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp>where it actually came from. http://lorencollins.net/tytler.html>More info here too.
10. DannieA said the following at 4:25 PM on Sep 25:
Marc
as a daughter of two immigrant Cubans, I think you misrepresent what the "American Dream" is.
No matter how it is said, the American Dream is that anyone if they work hard enough can accomplish their basic dreams and can try to better themselves and do that in a country that will respect your right to congregate and practice your faith.
11. JB said the following at 4:27 PM on Sep 25:
John,
Isn't love of money the root of all evil? How then can capitalism be the solution?
12. RuRu said the following at 5:34 PM on Sep 25:
I don't know if anyone else has watched the movie "Dave" but there is one scene that fits exactly what is going on. Really quick the premise of "Dave" is the US president has a stroke and his advisors do not want to the public to know. So they get Dave(played by kevin Klien) who looks exactly like the president to stand in. There is a point where Dave wants help figuring out the budget so he asks his friend (played by Charles grodin) to help. After looking at the paper work Dave says "I've been over and over this stuff. It doesn't add up."
Charles Grodin's character replies:
"Who does these books? If I ran my office this way, I'd be out of business."
13. Leah said the following at 6:31 PM on Sep 25:
Texas Craig- I think Candice was after a more financial cause, rather than spiritual.
Regarding the financial crisis itself: I didn't really understand how it happened, but I did understand that it was largely caused by lenders lending too much to people who were unlikely to be able to pay it back realistically. I realise that's only a part of the problem, but it was all I really understood, and enough to back up my conviction NEVER to borrow so much money that I wouldn't be able to pay it back.
Marc- I think it's unrealistic to expect people NOT to take out a loan when buying a house. Unless you just happen to have saved $400,000, (which would take a really long time), it's not going to happen. I think loans are fine so long as you know that realistically, you will be able to pay it off in a reasonable amount of time.
For example, of course you have to expect it would take longer to pay off a house than pay off a student debt or car. And if you're smart about your buying, then your house will probably also increase in value.
14. Brad O'Brien in Leesville LA said the following at 7:04 PM on Sep 25:
Thank you for this article. Far more light here than heat. That is just opposite of most of the "analysts" and AM talk radio conservative blowhard types.
I think this whole mess confirms the need to have term limits put on all Federal office holders (ie Congress and Senate). Christopher Dodd is all but owned outright by Countrywide Mortgages.
Yet still it was govt "reforms" which incentivized issuing mortgages to otherwise unqualified borrowers. In the USA unlike Europe or South America we attach un-necessary stigma to living with or near your relatives. Maybe now we'll recognize the folly of pushing home ownership for those who obviously werent ready for that responsibility!
15. John said the following at 8:31 PM on Sep 25:
"Pure greed"? What is that?
It was government regulation that caused this mess.
We should absolutely drill and go nuclear.
"The reason that changes which would bring awsome long-term solutions don't end up growing is because big, greedy businesses, especially energy companies (oil, coal) overpower them with money, propaganda, and lies."
The reason that changes which would bring awesome long-termsolutions don't end up growing is because big, greedy bureaucracies, especially regulatory bureaucracies (EPA) overpower them with money, propaganda, and lies.
16. John said the following at 9:03 PM on Sep 25:
Well said.
17. John said the following at 6:02 AM on Sep 26:
Looks like the regulators didn't want to do too much regulating.
Imagine that.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2008/09/26/big_bad_capitalists
18. John said the following at 6:33 AM on Sep 26:
"For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."
Any less complicated and we might have to start counting with our fingers.
19. Ryan said the following at 7:22 AM on Sep 26:
To MARC #4
I agree with you about the American Dream, although I do believe it still exists. The American Dream was never about having a nice house with a white picket fence and 2 cars...etc...It was about the fact that there was such freedom anyone could come to America and TRY. Perhaps to succeed, perhaps to fail. What was interesting about America is that SO MANY SUCCEEDED. We've become the wealthiest nation on earth. There has never need a guarantee of success though - only the guarantee of the opportunity to try for success. I BEG EVERYONE WHO READS THIS TO ALSO READ ALEXIS De TOCQUVILLE'S "DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA". An old book, but it says so much about where we are today.
To your point about the average joe, I could not agree more. This bail out is not just for Wall Street. The effects of this crisis will ruin this country for all Americans given the reality of how credit operates and how wound up everything is. There are two sides to this coin: One side are greedy corporate execs and lenders who issued bad debt and securitized it to the nth degree via derivatives et cetera (and with the aid of our government e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The other side consists of greedy every day Americans who have lived outside of their means and made poor financial decisions (to put it politely). The bail out has to happen, but I don't want people to blame it all on Wall Street.
20. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:15 AM on Sep 26:
Actually Candice that quote from Alexander Tyler is dubious and not actually tied to any of his writings.
However, I do believe that the principle of the text is accurate. That a population with an entitlement mentality towards government, even if it means going into debt and even if it means ultimate ruin of a country will still pursue that path. The situation regarding Social Security and Medicare give sufficient proof to that even without the current financial crisis. It's easy to say that we should fix our addiction to spending, but who will be the first one to stand up and say "yes" to a cut in benefits or an increase in taxes?
I've read extensively on what caused us to get into this mess and many points of view on it (not at all implying I have the answers to fix this mess but I found it very surprising how all these financial contraptions such as derivatives and credit-swaps were able to so deeply entrench themselves into our financial sector. It's Long Term Capital Management all over again).
However, what I've concluded is that I'm in agreement with some editors who say that A) We ought not to be surprised at Wall Street, and B) This mess is merely a reflection of our society's "buy now, pay later" mentality. Wall Street driven by greed and profits without regard to ethics?! Now, that's something I would've never expected . Especially after all the S&L, Enron, and dot com scandals. It's why I sold my Las Vegas home for twice as much as I bought it for despite only owning it for 2 years. I knew it couldn't last (and I had haunting memories of the dot com bust back in 2000). Even worse, people were too anxious to buy houses they couldn't afford (and believed people who would tell them otherwise and get them into "liar loans") and thought that they could just refinance when their ARM expired. And it's no surpise that those who are saddled with loads of debt, have horrible FICA scores, and live paycheck to paycheck still bought into these mortgages. Overextending yourself on a mortgage is very similar (in the way of thinking) to maxing our your credit card limit when you probably can't pay it back.
I'm not suggesting that everyone who was foreclosed upon was stupid or greedy. But given the circumstances, I agree that we all share some of the blame in this mess.
21. Simon said the following at 9:28 AM on Sep 26:
In response to Marc (4), the "American Dream" as it exists today is a distorted version of what it ought to be. Americans used to be frugal and had good financial habits -- e.g. living below your means, delayed gratification, becoming rich through saving. Now it's all about living paycheck to paycheck and having a lot of depreciating assets (car, big house, stereo system). I think the changes in monetary policy -- loss of the dollar-gold link and inflation had something to do with the change.
Honestly, the way people do it today is the antithesis of the path to financial independence. Every dollar that is spent on a luxury that does not produce wealth is a dollar that does not become capital towards building your financial independence -- e.g. starting a business, buying and maintaining rental properties, etc. Eventually that means not having to work for a living anymore but having the time to do what you truly want to do. People living the outwardly "rich" materialistic lifestyle are the ones who will never enjoy that kind of life in the future.
22. BDB said the following at 11:35 AM on Sep 26:
DannieA (#8) wrote:
>>It would be nice to get the economy stabalized though....what would any alternate suggestions be?<<
Well, the reason we must do something is that the mortgages are already insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were sponsored by and recently taken over by the U.S. Government. Without this rescue plan, those two entities will default on their insurance of those mortgages. They have trillions of dollars of mortgages they insured.
There's a story one of my economics professors told us about the start of the Reagan recession in the 1980's. Like this crisis, it was beginning to cost more and more for one bank to borrow money from another bank overnight. It got to much more than 10%. So, on a Friday, one bank decided to stop any new lending until they cleaned up their existing loans. They put out a memo to stop all new commercial lending.
There was a bar in San Francisco where all the bankers gathered on Fridays. A copy of the memo was passed around the bar. Bankers from all the different companies saw it. By noon on the next Monday, all commercial lendng ceased on the West Coast. And thus was a recession born.
The same thing is happening now. Most banks lent out way too much money. To get back on their feet, they need to pull back. They started in January by cutting off home-equity lines of credit. That started the "recession" feeling. Today most banks are afraid to take risks and loan money.
So, the focus needs to be on doing what is necessary to keep the healthy companies willing to lend money. As we just saw, those banks that took big risks, like WaMu, are now gone.
I agree with the WSJ, we should encourage the FDIC to use its existing authority to work with banks on the edge and help them get back into healthy territory. Under normal circumstances, the FDIC just takes over banks when it is too late. Under extrordinary circumstances, hey have the authority to work with banks before it's too late.
These are extraordinary circumstances.
23. John said the following at 11:46 AM on Sep 26:
So much wisdom, so little time:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2379
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5112
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5247
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5002
24. DannieA said the following at 2:19 PM on Sep 26:
BDB:
Thanks for the reply and comment. Yeah my whole family had WAMU...we're just glad we could use our bank today.
25. BDB said the following at 2:56 PM on Sep 26:
An opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal suggests an alternative plan that would cost a lot less.
Buy using taxpayer money to buy senior preferred shares in the struggling entities, the taxpayers are protected. This is what was done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The shareholders lose their dividend, so the people who profited by this debacle bear the costs. Like the Fannie and Freddie rescue, executives can be excused from their jobs without their golden parachutes. This would recapitalize the firms and ensure that taxpayers get paid back first before other debt holder and/or shareholders. It would also buy the necessary time for these illiquid mortgage-backed securities to mature.
26. Stefanie said the following at 2:29 AM on Sep 27:
John,
You seem to think that the problem lies in government regulations. Your solution is free market. But the mess started when the current administration de-regulated laws governing financial institutions.
Laws are there to protect people. There should be laws that keep large corporations from taking advantage of the rest of us. (I'm not absolving responsibility from homeowners who took out mortgages that were too big.)Why did we have that problem with toys from China being painted with lead paint? . . .because China doesn't regulate that stuff. Who cares if your child is now suffering from learning disabilities, the company made a nice profit from using cheaper paint.
No rules in financial sectors is called "free market." No rules in the rest of government is called "anarchy."
Please don't respond to tell me I'm a socialist. I see there are problems with both socialism and capitalism, because they both have a common factor: sinners. But I don't like when people have the one-sided attitude that capitalism equals godliness. It's easy to only see the good in one and only the bad in the other.
27. Leah said the following at 6:04 PM on Sep 28:
Just an aside to this whole story:
While the Australian economy is not in as much danger as the American one (we are not so invested in property as America is, I think), our banks are still making some of the mistakes that sent the US down the path it's going.
A banker I know, at one of Australia's largest banks, said recently that a couple whose combined income was $150,000 tried to get a homeloan from his bank. They couldn't. Why? Because they had no savings. $150,000 a year! No savings! The bank was not going to risk money on them. They went to the bank next door and got a loan.
Are they going to learn how to save? How to pay back the loan? And goodness knows how much they actually borrowed.
Now, the policies of the bank my banker friend works for has changed. Where they once required a borrower to have 5-10% already saved, they now require nothing. He said that as a Christian, it's a battle between giving people real advice ("you really can't afford this loan") and having to meet their quotas. He almost lost his job at the beginning of the year because he wasn't meeting his quota. His supervisor, who backed him up and made all the right calls for him to keep his job, lost her job two months ago because she wasn't meeting her quotas either.
Our banks are still pushing for people to borrow more than they can afford to pay back. However, our banks are also making record profits. So, while our citizens might be sent bust because of their unwise borrowing decisions, and while our economy will take a battering, it and our banks should still stay on their feet.
28. BDB said the following at 2:32 PM on Sep 29:
DannieA (#24) wrote:
>>Thanks for the reply and comment. Yeah my whole family had WAMU...we're just glad we could use our bank today. <<
And there goes Wachovia this morning...let's see...I think JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup are the only ones left standing.
Unless you count Fidelity. They were never an investment bank - never using leverage to make profit. I think I'll keep what little I have left parked there for now...they're sending me all the nice "please don't panic" e-mails...
29. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:14 AM on Sep 30:
But the mess started when the current administration de-regulated laws governing financial institutions.
It wasn't the current administration that de-regulated.
Go back and think about WHEN the housing bubble took off...
Just a note - it takes a while for the financial decisions made by one administration to actually affect the economy. Often times, the repercussions occur (good or bad) during someone else's administration.
30. John said the following at 12:02 PM on Sep 30:
Christine,
Amen Sista!
"No rules in financial sectors is called "free market." No rules in the rest of government is called "anarchy.""
Nope, incorrect. A free market can only properly function in an environment with a high regard for laws and right and wrong. You might want to do some research about free market before you write false definitions.
"I see there are problems with both socialism and capitalism, because they both have a common factor: sinners. "
And that's where the commonalities end.
Socialism is a system designed to concentrate power and wealth in the name of equality.
Capitalism is a sysem that distributes power and wealth to the most number of people.
Socialism is a sinful system run by sinful people.
Capitalism is a biblical system that best addresses the world we live in.
"But I don't like when people have the one-sided attitude that capitalism equals godliness. "
Capitalism is biblical. What's to not like about that?
"It's easy to only see the good in one and only the bad in the other. "
There is only bad in socialism. There is only good in capitalism. It's when people violate the principles of capitalism that you see bad, NOT when they abide by them.
On the other hand, its when peopel abide by socialism that you see the bad.
Anyway, to get more to the discussion at hand:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html
31. John said the following at 12:05 PM on Sep 30:
JB,
If someone tries to use capitalism to get rich, they're in for some trouble. Good attempt at mischaracterization of capitalism, but the love of money is not a principle of capitalism.
You can get rich in capitalism, but you can also get rich in socialism and communism.
The difference is when you get rich in socialism and communism it is because of stealing. In capitalism it is because of ingenuity.
32. Texas Craig said the following at 3:00 PM on Sep 30:
John (#30):
I am breaking my self-imposed vow to not respond to your posts, but I feel it appropriate.
When one looks at the substance of your posts, both in regard to this article and others, you seem to glorify and exalt capitalism and the free markets much more than you glorify God and exalt Jesus Christ.
Now, obviously we completely disagree on economic views and I am not seeking to address those issues right now. I mean no disrespect by this, but I am curious. Do you consider yourself a Christian? I know that there are a number of people on here who do not consider themselves Christians, so I am not trying to impugn you, but just trying to figure out where you are coming from.
If you are a Christian, then I would just encourage you to spend time seeking to "build others up" and to glorify God and exalt Jesus Christ, rather than simply arguing with people over monetary issues. It was Christ who said we cannot serve both God and money. Anyone who is putting so much emphasis on money and materialism should, at a minimum, check themselves to see where their heart lies. I am not making an accusation, but rather offering an observation. Do with it what you want.
Peace and Grace!
33. Leah said the following at 8:28 PM on Oct 1:
John,
while I completely agree that capitalism is better than socialism, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's biblical. It's a better option, yes. But I don't see the bible endorsing any certain type of economy. (Just like it doesn't endorse democracy, either).
34. John said the following at 7:25 AM on Oct 2:
TC,
You are simply too much. You're a hoot.
The guy who extoles the "virtues" of big government and portrays individual liberty as evil is questioning a poster who presents Christian biblical economics as to whether he is christian.
That is just too funny.
"When one looks at the substance of your posts, both in regard to this article and others, you seem to glorify and exalt capitalism and the free markets much more than you glorify God and exalt Jesus Christ."
When one looks at the substance of your posts, they can only come away astonished at how you twist God's word into Marxist nonsense. You glorify and exalt big government and Marxism much more than you glorify God and exalt Jesus Christ.
"Now, obviously we completely disagree on economic views and I am not seeking to address those issues right now."
Right, you have unbiblical views on how the economy should function, while I present biblical views. Issue addressed.
"just trying to figure out where you are coming from."
Yeah, you wouldn't be able to figure out that I'm coming directly from the bible.
"If you are a Christian, then I would just encourage you to spend time seeking to "build others up" and to glorify God and exalt Jesus Christ, rather than simply arguing with people over monetary issues."
If you were a Christian, then you would understand that I'm combating illogical, unbiblical assertions about economic policies, such as yours, that bring no glory to God nor exalt Jesus Christ.
Oh, and incase you haven't noticed, THE OP'S HAVE been ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND MONITARY ISSUES. (I guess the Internet is wrong again)
"It was Christ who said we cannot serve both God and money."
Very good. You've got something right.
"Anyone who is putting so much emphasis on money and materialism should, at a minimum, check themselves to see where their heart lies."
Anyone trying to mischaracterize another person's posts by saying they said something that they did not or associate with them ideas that have nothing to do with what they have posted is either lying or has trouble reading. Either way, they should check themselves to see where their heart lies...or their glasses.
"I am not making an accusation, but rather offering an observation. Do with it what you want."
You make assertions, I refute them, you change the subject, I point that out, you attack me or mischaracterize me, etc. etc.
Listen, nice try trying to convince people that they need government to control them and protect them from their own stupidity. You haven't succeeded, but you gave an effort. You made your ideas almost seem Christian, but they're not.
I'm sorry pal, but you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper every time you post.
Look, I know it can be hard to undo years of government indoctrination from your publik skool, but it is possible.
Renew your mind. (That's from the bible, by the way.)
35. Texas Craig said the following at 10:28 AM on Oct 2:
John:
I see you did not answer my question. But, the substance of your post certainly gives some insight as to what the answer probably is.
John, say whatever you want about me, I will not be drawn into responding in the same fashion. As a Christian, my responsibility is to edify and build up others and to have a civil discourse about subjects. Engaging you does not serve those purposes, because you spend more time attacking people rather than laying out cogent arguments.
I have no fear of engaging you. I was a federal litigator for 5 years, making my living by arguing. I am now on the other side of the bench and earn a living deciding the merits of other people's arguments. I was in the top 1% on my law school admission test and missed no questions at all on the logic and analytical sections of the test. So, despite your comments about my education, I am confident in my ability to understand and analyze issues. I also very much enjoy good debates about topics, provided they are done in a civil and respectful way.
But, my goal on here is simply to have edifying discussions over subjects, not rancorous and rude arguments with others. I have an obligation, as a Christian, to try to build others up. Participating in a shouting match with someone usually does not accomplish that, especialy when the discussion includes personal attacks.
Many of my comments include a discussion of both the practical (i.e., the need for government regulation in certain areas, the root causes of problems, etc.) and the personal, spiritual component (namely, how should we as Christians respond to these situations, i.e., by not worrying, by not putting too much emphasis on money, by not losing sight of what our real purpose is in this life). But, I hope all of us who claim the name of Christ recognize that the latter should trump the former.
Peace and Grace in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and the only name under heaven by which a man can be saved!
36. John said the following at 10:53 AM on Oct 13:
TC,
Read and learn.