Into the Fire

Passionate thoughts about the world of writing and the Power of God

recent posts

about

Passionate: right or wrong. Writes love stories with a passion. Raw Romantic Redemptive

Understand?

Well, I don’t. Tell me how the narcissistic, paparazzi inviting, outlandish conduct and verbal expressions all designed to get, stir up, or revive attention for Madonna over the years must now suddenly be due a quiet respect as she and husband Guy Ritchie divide the spoils and the children as they plan their divorce.

I don’t understand the street begging. Who is in real need and who is running a scam? Those who are in need of food and available work, who can’t commit to “real” jobs because of PTSD or other emotional problems, and this is their solution: to hold a cardboard sign with pleas inscribed . . . I care about them. I just don’t always know who they are. Sometimes I give them money. Many more times I do not. I pray for discernment, so that if I can help, I will.

I don’t understand how Christians can be convinced that socialism as a government will work. It has failed miserably in Europe with double digit unemployment and stagnant economies worse than our own. Taxes required to fund the government require nearly 40% of wages.

I don’t understand racism. I know how it operates, but it is demonically inspired. We are all made of dust, capable of every kind of evil. The only value we have is what God has assigned to each one of us: He considered us worthy of redemption. I don’t understand how. The most valuable price in all eternity was paid for us.

The older I get the less I know . . .

God, you are the only source of Truth. Thank you for redemption, Jesus. Holy Spirit, speak to us clearly. We are desperate for you. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

Posted in

5 responses to “Understand?”

  1. Daniel Smith Avatar
    Daniel Smith

    If your comment regarding socialism is in regards to what you think Obama’s agenda is, well, you’re mistaken.
    Here’s a fact or two: 1) At the end of the Clinton years there was a budget surplus and a national debt of around 5 trillion that was being paid down due to the surplus. 2) It is now the close of the Bush years and there is no budget surplus, there is a global economic crisis, and the 5 trillion in debt has ballooned to almost double at over 9 trillion. 3) It now takes the US government all the taxes paid from January through sometime in May to pay off the national debt. January through April alone would be 4 months out of 12 which is 33%.
    Conclusion: Without socialism in the United States we already are using over 33% of our taxes to pay for our national debt.
    All of those numbers are accurate though I do not have sources for you. I interpret them to mean that this country needs to change its present course.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Daniel Smith Avatar
    Daniel Smith

    Sorry, I need to clarify something. In #3, “pay off the national debt” should have been “pay the yearly payment with interest on the national debt”.
    It’s really bad, people.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Daniel, if you want to talk about Clinton, talk about how he blew his chance to take out Osama Bin Laden, how he wouldn’t allow our military to defend itself in Mogadishu, and his phony attacks on an aspirin factory. If you want to talk Clinton, talk about the economy downhill slide that Bush inherited as he took office and then had to deal with 9-11. If you want to talk present day economy, ask youself why the Democrats wouldn’t rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when Bush tried to address the issues with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. The economy enjoyed years of prosperity under Bush in spite of an expensive war which kept the terrorists away from our country until the elected Dems in Congress got the majority and stymied all investigation into the mortgage practices. This economy failure isn’t Bush’s. It’s square in the lap of Democrats.
    I’m willing to bet your tax bracket doesn’t pay 33% of your income in taxes.
    Obama is a socialist. His desire “to spread the wealth around” is the classic equalizer. Too bad if you worked hard for your money. If you made more than you should have, you’re going to have to pay the government to give it to someone else. And don’t think your personal taxes won’t be raised. He’s in favor of raising capital gains, losing the current Bush tax breaks which will instantly cost every tax paying citizen, he’s pro death tax. He’s never met a tax he didn’t like.
    It’s typical that you want to blame the entire global crisis on Bush as if he’s directly responsible for other country’s poor financial practices.
    Your “facts” are skewed regardless of what Democrat source they came from.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Daniel Smith Avatar
    Daniel Smith

    The facts are not skewed, but they are open to interpretation. I see the national economy as a kind of flywheel. Once it gets going, it takes some time to change its speed and direction. Therefore, I believe there’s a lag time between when the process of change starts and when it actually starts happening.
    The republicans took over control of congress in 1998 two years before the end of the Clinton era which ended with a budget surplus. Likewise, the democrats took over in 2006 two years before the end of the Bush era which had debt. I certainly grant you that the democrats were in power in the house and arguably in the senate too when the current economic crisis hit, but it’s open to interpretation whether they are responsible. If my flywheel theory is correct, it could easily still be the responsibility of the republicans.
    Now, did the democrats make the crisis happen or force it to happen sooner? I don’t know. Would it have happened anyway eventually? I think so. The housing market was clearly hollow. It broke when, two years ago or so? Some say it led to the current financial crisis. Again, I don’t know, but most Americans are blaming the republicans more than the democrats.
    Regarding Clinton, I thought he was a great president for the most part. I certainly can’t condone some of his ethical decisions, but he was a good president in other areas. I also concede that he could have gotten Bin Laden when he had the chance and did not. As a commander-in-chief Clinton left something to be desired.
    You’re also right about Obama and taxes for the most part. He does support taxation. Want to know a little secret? So does McCain, or he will have no choice but to support them. Let’s face it, the current economic crisis and the national debt are so great that it’s going to require taxation to dig us out. I’d rather have Obama’s tax plan to McCain’s though since I earn well below the $250,000 threshold. If you earn more than that then you’re better of with McCain’s plan.
    I have to mention one more thing on taxes. Obama has yet to contradict the accusation that he’s a tax-and-spend democrat, but isn’t that better than being a borrow-and-waste republican.
    Thanks for sharing your passion.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    The $250,000 amount has already been reduced to $200,000 during another of Obama’s slips. It isn’t rock solid. And McCain plans on keeping the Bush tax cuts in place having admitted and learned that tax cuts stimulate the economy better than anything else.
    I’m well aware the Republicans can be blamed for abandoning their conservative positions which contributes to economic problems. The mortgage crisis lies in the lap of Dems, however.
    Tax and spend is the worst case scenario because we have way too much government as it is. Borrow and waste is by no means solely a Republican problem. We need to cut taxes and cut programs/spending.
    Clinton failed as a Commander-in-Chief and as a true leader. Foreign policy was a joke. A real narcissist.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment