Nick Paumgarten has a chilling conversation with an unnamed major investment banker, who is burrowing in for a long and brutal winter. Excerpt:
"Markets are about travelling, not arriving," the banker said, mysteriously. So let us travel through time. "In the past, in difficult times, Americans just worked harder," he went on. "But there aren't enough hours in the day, or enough incentives to work harder, and there's nothing to work on. People, in the end, will find a way to work their way out of it. They'll pay down their debts. They'll have to. And then everyone will get bored with doom and gloom and dip their toes in again."Still, this one is so bad. After 9/11, it took people only six months to get stupid. This time, it will take ten years for people to become stupid again." He continued, "America will just be less influential. It will be poorer. It may be the end of the empire." Another call came in. Work to be done--whatever it might be. "But it isn't the end of the world."
Meanwhile, Yahoo Finance interviews an anonymous investment banker who is also pretty bleak about the future. Excerpt:
Q: What do you say to the taxpayers who didn't participate in the borrowing frenzy of the last few years, who saved diligently and are now paying the price with their tax dollars? And who may have to pay it again when the baby boomers retire and the government raises taxes to bail out people who haven't saved?A: I also lived very conservatively and did not borrow, and I think we're all going to get hosed. But the reality is it's in our interest that the economy doesn't melt down. I'm a right-wing free market [supporter], and the last person to ask for government intervention, but if we allow a breakdown in the financial system you're going to have a depression. It's like the military -- incredibly expensive, but the cost of not doing it is far worse.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod, one gathers that you have a medically fragile child, as I did.
Let me hit you personally.
You work for a big newspaper. I have no idea what health coverage your employer offers, but I'm assuming that it's something at least.
So now put yourself into the position of someone who does not have such an employer, and who has such a child.
We, my family, were faithful to the teachings of the Church about reproduction. As a result, we had a child who was born with very serious mental and physical disabilities. I don't regret his birth for an instant.
But I'm wondering why our family has to bear this burden alone. Oh yes, we are all "community." Until it costs something. And then, suddenly, we are not community any more.
There are a number of such children born every year. Some are born to faithful folks like us; some are born to people who should not have children at all, according to some of your posters here. But whether or no, we are all of us, rich and poor, on our own. And the children, well of course they are blameless, but that doesn't help anyone.
We're "pro-life." Nice slogan. But when the "life" involved is less than convenient, "pro-life" evaporates, and the family with the impaired youngster, under this plan, is on its own.
You "conservatives" seem to take the position that it's our problem, not yours. Oh well, paddle this canoe on your own.
"Community" stops well short of your pocketbook.
Those of you here who don't think that government should help families like mine, well, where are we? We're on our own? A terrific witness to the gospel.
"We're "pro-life." Nice slogan. But when the "life" involved is less than convenient, "pro-life" evaporates, and the family with the impaired youngster, under this plan, is on its own."
The day the Church became more concerned with how pretty their building looked than how well they ministered to those in need among their membership the Church lost its first love.
The day the Church decided it was more important to have a trained choir and director than to have an effective outreach to the shut-ins and disabled in their community the Church lost its first love.
The day the Church decided that the benefit of a political party was more important than the benefit of the sacred community of believers entrusted to its care is the day the Church lost its first love.
Conservatives decry the proliferation of government programs for the poor and ill among us. They decry the increase in taxes necessary to provide for these programs. They decry the inefficiency of these programs, and the waste they generate.
Yet when they are given a chance through their local congregations to reach out to the community surrounding their place of worship, invariably they decide it is more important to vote pro-life than live pro-life. They decide it is more important to have a multimedia rich sanctuary that seats a couple of thousand, and a ministerial staff that is paid more than the President of the United States. They decide it is more important to condemn gays and lesbians than to carry water to the poor families that live just outside their spacious parking lot.
What is God to do for his suffering children if his church will not step up and care for them? Would a loving, caring father allow his children to die if it was within his power to save them?
Conservatives want to cut spending on social programs, many of which help people like your child, Old Susan. But they do not then come to their places of worship and insist that the gap be filled by God's called-out ones. Instead they sit back and talk about "my money" and "my rights" when they really have neither, if they actually believed what is said in the Bible.
I feel for you, Old Susan, for I have seen far too many churches turn a blind eye to those hurting in their midst. I have seen them walk away from families who lost jobs, thinking that somehow "God must be judging them." I have seen them begrudge a young couple the cost of a tank of gas to get them down the road to their parents, thinking the couple was simply trying to get cigarette money.
Love of money...this is what has replaced love of God in far too many congregations across this nation. And until that is corrected (and some lampstands removed from their places) no doubt God will keep the government involved to provide the services that the Church should be, but has chosen not to provide.
"We're "pro-life." Nice slogan. But when the "life" involved is less than convenient, "pro-life" evaporates, and the family with the impaired youngster, under this plan, is on its own."
The day the Church became more concerned with how pretty their building looked than how well they ministered to those in need among their membership the Church lost its first love.
The day the Church decided it was more important to have a trained choir and director than to have an effective outreach to the shut-ins and disabled in their community the Church lost its first love.
The day the Church decided that the benefit of a political party was more important than the benefit of the sacred community of believers entrusted to its care is the day the Church lost its first love.
Conservatives decry the proliferation of government programs for the poor and ill among us. They decry the increase in taxes necessary to provide for these programs. They decry the inefficiency of these programs, and the waste they generate.
Yet when they are given a chance through their local congregations to reach out to the community surrounding their place of worship, invariably they decide it is more important to vote pro-life than live pro-life. They decide it is more important to have a multimedia rich sanctuary that seats a couple of thousand, and a ministerial staff that is paid more than the President of the United States. They decide it is more important to condemn gays and lesbians than to carry water to the poor families that live just outside their spacious parking lot.
What is God to do for his suffering children if his church will not step up and care for them? Would a loving, caring father allow his children to die if it was within his power to save them?
Conservatives want to cut spending on social programs, many of which help people like your child, Old Susan. But they do not then come to their places of worship and insist that the gap be filled by God's called-out ones. Instead they sit back and talk about "my money" and "my rights" when they really have neither, if they actually believed what is said in the Bible.
I feel for you, Old Susan, for I have seen far too many churches turn a blind eye to those hurting in their midst. I have seen them walk away from families who lost jobs, thinking that somehow "God must be judging them." I have seen them begrudge a young couple the cost of a tank of gas to get them down the road to their parents, thinking the couple was simply trying to get cigarette money.
Love of money...this is what has replaced love of God in far too many congregations across this nation. And until that is corrected (and some lampstands removed from their places) no doubt God will keep the government involved to provide the services that the Church should be, but has chosen not to provide.
Susan:
The only first hand experience I have with socialized health care is the experience of Canadian friends. While there costs are mostly paid through taxes rather than health care premiums, and they have less worries as a result of health care being linked to jobs, they have much more concern with whether they can actually get timely health care, and the quality of the care they get. I say this because I know many who have made the choice to seek care in the selfish US health care system when they were not able to get it in a timely manner in their own country.
I don't want a government official any more involved in my health care than they already are.
Yes the state does a lot of things the churches did in the past, for better or for worse. The most important difference is that the churches usually did not bring gunpowder (implicitly or explicitly) into the system as the state does.
Free giving to the less fortunate is best. Today there are tens of millions of people who would not dare ask their neighbor if they could borrow a cup of sugar but would collectively force him to pay for a lot more.
BTW: where I grew up in the 1950's neighbors borrowed things like sugar, flour, etc all the time.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.