The following is a thread on my Facebook Wall:
The profit figure for Exxon-Mobil was only the most obscene of a flood of multi-billion-dollar earnings reports from the major oil companies. Shell's profits rose 22 percent to $6.9 billion, while the profits of ConocoPhillips rose 44 percent to $3 billion.
One year after the Gulf oil disaster, BP posted a first-quarter profit of $7.1 billion, an increase of 17 percent. Occidental Petroleum saw its profits soar 46 p....
Exxon-Mobil, the world's biggest and most profitable corporation, raked in a staggering $10.7 billion in profits during the first quarter of 2011, the company reported Thursday. The figure was a 69 percent increase over the same quarter last year, and the highest quarterly profit since 2008, the las....
Friday at 10:26am Â· Like Â· Â· Share
xxxxxxx xxxxxx [name deleted]
If Bush was president he would need to double his security guards to get to the restroom
Friday at 10:27am Â· Like
So, what should Obama do?
Friday at 10:34am Â· Like
DRILL HERE and talk about it!! To be fair not much Bush or Obama could have done but the media treats them differently. Also OPEC, as Trump says needs to be put in their place!! We send tons of money to people that do not like us!! Also, there is nothing that can power our society except oil. Green energy is still way to expensive and people can not afford the extra cost while being hammered with these higher fuel costs and the fear of higher taxes. We need this administration to STOP spending!! As our dollar declines oil goes up. Let me tell you if the world stops using the dollar you will see gas to $8 a gallon over night!! Standard and Poors gave us a small wake up call a coulple weeks ago about our debt and Obama still does not get it!!!!!!
Friday at 10:51am Â· Like
What would you do to put OPEC in its place? What is its place?
If the nation had done the right things back in the 1970's, we'd be carbon-and-nuclear free right now with very low or even no rates. The longer we put it off, the worse it will get.
As for spending, have you studied post-Keynesian economics at all? I'm way, way beyond it.
Nationalizing the Fed and issuing tax-and-interest free United States Notes are the ways to go in the shortest-run. It would be easy to avoid both inflation and deflation.
Also for the short-run, soak the rich. Hose them down. Drench them. They are a huge drag on everything. They always have been.
Don't forget to view them through Jesus's eyes. You've read his word about them.
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. — Luke 22:25-26.
Yesterday at 1:00am Â· Like
I read the word everyday and I see nowhere where Jesus speaks about the rich the way you and many libs do. God loves a cheerful giver and yes Jesus has strong words for the rich He also talks mostly about loving your neighbor and doing good to those that persecute you. Furthermore look at Zacchaeus , is there anything that says he became por after his heart was changed???? you would send the rich to hell, I would try to turn them into a friend by showing God's love and have them continue to do what they do (as long as it is legal) and enjoy giving. Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then a rich man to enter heaven. Let me ask you this, are you and i rich compared to most of the world?? Thousands of children die daily due to hunger, why are you and i better?? I tell you we are rich, filthy rich. I do not find fault and judge (I try not to), not my job. besides scripture says the poor will always be with us. If you force the rich to give without a changed heart it does more damage then good as they will cut jobs, raise prices, or simply stop producing or move away, more important they will hate you and the gospel will not be furthered.
20 hours ago Â· Like
xxxxxxx, the post is about the obscene oil-corporation profits in the face of what you're complaining about: high gas prices. They are making more profits while they've cut back on production. Here you are though complaining about Barack Obama. Now, is that fair? No, it's not. It's not Christian either because of it.
Obama makes plenty of mistakes. I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out how you ignored the thrust of the post and the linked article.
So you said we should drill more here because alternative energy is way too expensive. You have been listening to so-called "conservatives" who are spreading false propaganda against energy systems that will replace the cash-cow of the rich: the oil industry.
Alternative energy is not way too expensive. If we wanted to convert as a nation, we could do it and save in both the short run and long run. I get 90% of my energy from non-carbon and non-nuclear, and my rates are the lowest of any big city metro-area in the nation.
Drilling is adding to pollution much more than alternatives would. There are other people's health at risk. How is causing more problems by drilling practicing the Golden Rule? It is not!
You didn't even answer my question about OPEC. You brought them up. I was patient. I asked. You blew me off.
You also complained that "We send tons of money to people that do not like us!!" Well, that's the Golden Rule, isn't it? Aren't you being more than a tad inconsistent in its application? Yes, you are. You want to apply it to the super-greedy rich but not the others that you say "do not like us." Maybe they don't like "us" partly because we allow those superrich to rape other people's nations. You are aware of how neo-liberal economics works, right?
You also mentioned "fear of higher taxes," as if the lower and middle classes are the ones who would be taxed more if the rich were taxed more. Look, the taxes on the rich just went down. Mine went up at the same time, even though I made no more money but actually have less money due to price inflation. I spend 46% on housing. What about you? What do you think Bill Gates spends?
You said, "We need this administration to STOP spending!!" However, I asked you if you studied post-Keynesian economics. You didn't answer about that either. If you understood the economics, you'd know that it isn't the spending, per se, that's the problem. It's where it has been going. Too much of it completely missed "Main Street," in the mixed-economy sense, which mixed-economy I don't even support.
You care what Standard & Poor's has to say? They lied through their teeth for decades about the mega-banksters. They were paid to give AAA ratings to junk.
"If the nation had done the right things back in the 1970's, we'd be carbon-and-nuclear free right now with very low or even no rates. The longer we put it off, the worse it will get." That's what I said, and I'm right.
I said we should nationalize the Fed and issue tax-and-interest free United States Notes. Doing those two things while pegging the money supply to real productivity would control inflation/deflation and grow the economy to whatever we want it to be. You're not interested in that though. Why not? Why are you so interested in repeating worn-out, false ideas that you've learned from the greedy rather than being interested in what a Christian has to say? Did your eyes simply gloss over when you read my words that you didn't even have a thing to say about them or ask even one earnest question?
Am I not being nice by putting this to you? Am I being un-Christian? It's the rich you are defending who are being the most un-Christian and need to be told so and whether they want to hear it or not.
When I said, "for the short-run, soak the rich. Hose them down. Drench them. They are a huge drag on everything. They always have been," I was speaking to you as you had approached me — in secular terms.
Taxes are not my chosen method. The Christian Commons is. There are no taxes in the New Heaven and will not be any in the New Earth. The sooner those are here, the better. I trust God will choose the perfect timing for them though. The Gospel hasn't been really preached everywhere yet.
xxxxxxx, Jesus was scathing in his denounciations of the rich. You though have put words in my mouth and ideas in my head that weren't and aren't there. Nevertheless, I'll address you on some of it.
"But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." — Isaiah 32:8.
"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself." — Proverbs 11:25.
Those are about what it means to be a liberal. You should be one too.
"But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." — Jesus, Luke 6:24.
"And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection." — Jesus, Luke 8:14.
"The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." — Jesus, Luke 12:16-21 KJV
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried." — Jesus, Luke 16:22.
As for Zacchaeus, you should know that he was not and is not on par with Joses Barnabas.
"And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet." — Acts 4:36-37.
Zacchaeus will be rewarded in the exact proportion to what he has done. He did a good thing, relatively speaking. Jesus commended him for the change of heart. We don't know what more he did than he said he would.
Are you arguing against Jesus because Jesus pronounced woe upon the rich but said of Zacchaeus, "This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham"? I have zero difficulty reconciling those things. I don't find any hypocrisy in Jesus.
35 minutes ago Â· Like
You said of me though that I "would send the rich to hell." That's an unfounded accusation on your part. Where have I said I would send the rich to Hell? I do not root up the tares and burn them, but I know that's what happens due to the poor choices of those rich ones. You need to be more careful about judging me.
You asked me, "are you and i rich compared to most of the world?? Thousands of children die daily due to hunger, why are you and i better?? I tell you we are rich, filthy rich." I don't know about your circumstances. I know mine. I am aware of the thousands who are in worse conditions. I also know why they are and how to end it, but the rich (not all but the vast majority) are not interested.
You say of yourself that you "do not find fault and judge." Well, you have to agree with Jesus when he pronounces woe upon whom he does and why and what that means in terms of judgment as he defines judging. He judges no man. What do you make of it? Have you figured it out?
"...besides scripture says the poor will always be with us." They will not. Jesus was talking to them then. He was not talking eternally. There are no poor in the New Heaven and New Earth.
"If you force the rich to give without a changed heart it does more damage then good as they will cut jobs, raise prices, or simply stop producing or move away, more important they will hate you and the gospel will not be furthered."
I stand against coercion. I also stand against the hypocrisy of the very rich. I was offering a secular solution to a "secular" situation. Do those rich not use the might of the military to enforce their political-economic system? Of course they have and still do.
In addition, you didn't understand why I quoted the scripture I did: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." — Jesus, Luke 22:25-26.
Besides, when Jesus told the rich one to give everything that he had to the poor, do you think Jesus was not furthering the Gospel? It is true that Jesus did not use the power of the Roman and Jewish states to force the rich one to give. That rich one will not have the door opened to him though. He was commanded, even though he didn't see it that way. I do. Jesus's word was, and is, law.
I am not asking for Christianity to be un-Christian. I am calling for the Commons, which is voluntary (even though it's required). At the same time, as do you, I speak of secular things to the secular, who are lost. I speak to them of greater consistency even within their broken and fatally flawed system. I am telling the poor within the system that the rich have constantly tricked them, which is true. You are still tricked by them, xxxxxxx.
If the poor and middle class are going to remain in that secular system (mixed-economy democracy), if they are going to refuse to soften their hearts enough to remove their own sin and poverty (have it lifted by God), let them at least not be so ripped off by those who are that much more hard-hearted. That's why I first tell them to see the Christian Commons before I tell them to then at least see the lesser light — any light.
The rich are not the benefactors. You are duped. It's more of why I had asked you if you've studied post-Keynesianism. Higher taxes on the rich in the US has never caused an economic problem but the contrary.
You speak as if the rich make the world go around. They don't. What they mostly do is try to grab as much as they can and by lying, prevent others from getting a fair and decent share.
If they were taxed at, at least twice the rate they are, unemployment would drop and wages and salaries of everyone else would go up.
When you say of the rich that they would stop producing, you speak as if it is the rich who break into the sweat working and actually labor to turn out the products, etc. Apparently, you don't believe in the labor-theory of value very much, if at all.
Many, many capitalists do not work. They live off passive investments that are taxed at the very low capital-gains rate. Soaking the rich would not harm them especially relative to how much it would benefit everyone else who has had his and her piece of the pie stolen right out from in front of his and her by those very rich "serpents" you are defending.
So, yes, of course, by all means, have the rich have their changes of heart, but if they don't, then back all the way off and let everyone do whatever he or she wants (total anarchy); or apply against the rich as much or more pressure as those rich apply against the poor, who they've been robbing blind via tax schemes for decades.
Do you know about those tax schemes, xxxxxxx? Do you understand how government bonds are a scam for the rich banksters?
34 minutes ago Â·
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)