Archive for February 11, 2009


Capitalism: A Bull Market Concept

Filed under: Current Events, Eagle Views, Insights on Scripture by Allen Scott — Leave a comment
February 11, 2009

1Co 9 (GW) Moses’ Teachings say, “Never muzzle an ox when it is threshing grain.” God’s concern isn’t for oxen. 10 Isn’t he speaking entirely for our benefit? This was written for our benefit so that the person who plows or threshes should expect to receive a share of the crop. 1 Corinthians 9:9-10


This is the main force behind capitalism and the free market system of the United States. A man works expecting to get a return on that work. Companies produce products they hope to sell for a profit. Companies, nor individuals would long endure lengthy periods of non-reward. If a company continues to loose revenue in the course of doing business it would cease doing business. If an individual would be forced to continually work for less or nothing at all, it would not take long before that individual gives up and quits working.

Our economy works the same way. It will cease to operate if all profit is removed from the system through heavy taxation or over regulation. If the cost of doing business exceeds the reward of the same, then business will cease, production will dry up and there will be nothing more to tax or regulate. Therefore allow a workman to make a decent wage, allow companies to operate at a profit, do not MUZZLE the ox that is actually producing. After all if you stop production there will be nothing to take and give to anyone. If however you allow producers to produce there will be enough to not only feed the ox that is doing the work but others as well. Keep the ox happy and you live long and prosper. Bull markets are more favorable then bear markets wouldn’t you think?

Think about it next time you pull the lever for more government taxation, oversight, regulation and intervention.

Pay a man what he is worth and stop muzzling the ox that stamps out the grain. Heavy taxation only stifles the workman because he looses hope in a harvest and gives up. Redistribution of wealth robs a man of his willingness to produce. Taking his hard earned fields in order to give it to someone who has not labored is demoralizing. Heavy taxation upon what a man produces will only cause him to find ways to avoid the heavy taxation or completely give up the process altogether.

Government bailouts are not only non-constitutional I feel they are not even biblical. What say you?
Related articles by Zemanta
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Geithner Speaks Wall Street Sinks

Filed under: Eagle Views by Allen Scott — Leave a comment
February 11, 2009
Former Tax Cheat, and current Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, failed to “Stimulate” Wall street with his less than stellar speech on Tuesday Fed 10th. In fact his speech was so “STIMULATING” that the Dow Jones average fell almost 400 points to a new all time low. Yes sirree bob we need more STIMULUS like this. WAY TO GO B.O. you sure do know how to stink up the economy.

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com
Video
Traders ‘Not Moved’ by Geithner Speech
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday outlined plans to increase consumer lending and remove toxic assets from banks’ balance sheets. But analysts said they were disappointed by the lack of details in the plans.
» LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER
Comment

Government Bailouts Unconstitutional, Well Sorta..

Filed under: Eagle Views by Allen Scott — Leave a comment
February 11, 2009
Up until the new deal Constitutional limitations were strictly enforced upon congress. However Roosevelt grew angry when told that he did not have the authority to enact all these government regulations and interventions into the private sector.

His response was to replace these aging constructionist Supreme court judges with ardent NEW DEAL supporters and the rest like they say is history.

No longer was it necessary to actually write legislation that had to be voted upon and approved through the regular democratic process, now all that needed to be done was for the Supreme court to legislate the Presidents objectives from the bench. And then congress would have to enact law accordingly. AFTER ALL who could argue with the SUPREME COURT?

Does any of this sound familiar?

Although the constitution strictly limited governmental powers Roosevelt found a way around the constitution. Lawlessness always finds a way to circumvent the law to justify their lawlessness.

clipped from www.csmonitor.com

Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government’s powers
were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments.
Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend
money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or countless other items
in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget.

This Constitutional constraint still operated as late as the 1930s, when federal courts issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain
officials from carrying out acts of Congress, and the Supreme Court overturned the New Deal’s centerpieces, the National Industrial
Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and other statutes. This judicial action outraged President Roosevelt,
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers