Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you consider the US President's security detail and Air Force One "mishandling of funds"?
And the pope's tricked out SUV with that custom made enclosure with 4-foot wide windows that he uses to go flossing around.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/popes/john-paul-ii/popemobile-sm.jpg
I thought it was a joke the first time I saw it, but it's the real deal. One really amusing thing about that picture in particular is the a ...[text shortened]... t the Church's mishandling of funds, but it's been paraded before their very eyes for years.
Originally posted by Nemesio
When I pay my lighting bill, it is after taxes are taken out of my wages. So, I may earn 100 dollars a week, but I take home 75 dollars (say), of which 15 dollars may go to my lighting bill, 10 to my water, 10 to my gas, 5 to food, and 15 to my mortgage. This leaves me 10 dollars.
When the priest's lighting bill gets paid, it comes out of the collection plate before it is taxed. And, so, the priest may make 50 dollars to my 100, and, because he falls in a lower tax bracket, may end up with 35, he has no expenses after that, making his job far more lucrative than mine.
Isn't that true of Protestant pastors as well? Every Protestant minister I've ever known (and I'll admit there aren't that many of them) has had housing, utilities and even their kids' education paid for them by their respective congregations.
Then again, maybe things are different in the US.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot a big fan of government spending then.
The government as it has been put into practice in every administration.
What would a government that does not "mishandle funds" look like to you? How would it differ from present or past administrations? Please be specific.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSee the Great Debate of '06 for the specifics, in particular, my closing post. A government that only enables such a capitalist system while protecting citizens from violence and sustaining its own administration is not mishandling funds. A government that does anything extra, such as enforcing minimum wage laws or providing health care or housing marijuana users in jails, is mishandling funds.
Not a big fan of government spending then.
What would a government that does not "mishandle funds" look like to you? How would it differ from present or past administrations? Please be specific.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat about laws against child labour? Healthcare (you've mentioned this, yes), housing, food etc. for those who cannot afford it?
See the Great Debate of '06 for the specifics, in particular, my closing post. A government that only enables such a capitalist system while protecting citizens from violence and sustaining its own administration is not mishandling funds. A government that does anything extra, such as enforcing minimum wage laws or providing health care or housing marijuana users in jails, is mishandling funds.
Perhaps you like to live in a society where people who cannot afford to keep themselves alive simply curl up and die?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI would prefer to live in such socitey than in one in which people are enslaved to keep the helpless alive.
What about laws against child labour? Healthcare (you've mentioned this, yes), housing, food etc. for those who cannot afford it?
Perhaps you like to live in a society where people who cannot afford to keep themselves alive simply curl up and die?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSurely any government that tries to protect its citizens by restraining, dissuading or punishing people that wish to do (or actually do) violence against them is no less "enslaving" such people to keep the helpless alive.
I would prefer to live in such socitey than in one in which people are enslaved to keep the helpless alive.