Jesus' forgiveness is for the whole world.
But they have to accept Jesus as a Lord and Savior and strive to be like Him.
500,000 plus Americans are homeless
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Jesus' forgiveness is for the whole world.
But they have to accept Jesus as a Lord and Savior and strive to be like Him.
exminister
Well-known member
You cherry pick and mask the topic with distractions.
You are not following Jesus, who said pay taxes, not to give excuses to not pay. The Jews were trying to trap him. Unlike him you fell into their trap. The Pharisees and Saducees complicate following God. You would like them cause you argue like them
exminister
Well-known member
I am sure what Roman taxes supported you would not consent to. I would go further and say Jesus would not consent to what the Romans did with tax money. Yet he said give unto Caesar. You then would tell Jesus he was wrong.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Not even Peter and the eleven? Not the apostle Paul?
oatmeal
Well-known member
I am not aware of that.
If the Democrats and Hillary were smart they would have used that against Trump in their campaign.
Why didn't they?
Maybe someone made that up and it was too easy to correct.
Declaring bankruptcy goes against Roman 13 "Owe no man anything"
Are you in debt? Did you take out a loan to rent (purchase? no, not purchase) a car?
Do you have a mortgage on your house?
If you are in debt you are falling short of the grace of God, God says to "owe no man anything but to love one another"
Are you in debt?
Do you want to please God or your lending institution or you peers or the Jones'?
If you want to please God, get out of debt.
There is a sweet freedom in not owing any man anything.
exminister
Well-known member
Hillary did bring up Trump’s bankruptcies. It is public record and Trump bragged about it saying he knew how to game the system. So is sticking the bill to taxpayers and contractors for nearly a billion dollars stealing?
That's nothin'. The Clinton Crime Consortium bilked hundreds of millions (that we know of) from foreign countries, charities and "foundations". Not to mention the felonies she committed. How did Trump "stick the bill" to taxpayers and contractors? Why was he never found guilty of a crime just like Clinton hasn't been yet? Don't act like there are only questions about one side.
exminister
Well-known member
You haven’t read my prior post, which surprises me.
You know el Trumpo is guilty as well, a felon just as well. The Don has a long family line of sleaze and knows how to insulate himself. As he said unwittingly “It’s not personal. It’s just business.” Hillary is a piker..
I wrote above we were doomed if Hillary won as well. She and Trump both could have done the country a favor and let better women and men to run. Hillary is not the president. The president has immense power so it is right to focus on him. Just like the Republicans focused on Bill Clinton’s indiscretions so Trump should now be the focus. This shows the hypocrisy of the Republicans where they look the other way when their party is violating women. I think it’s a one-two punch. Dems lying about Bill’s sin and now the Republicans both calling out and then supporting the sins of their members. The hypocrisy is palpable.
It might be a good time for morality in this country despite what is seen presently.
exminister
Well-known member
He wrote of nearly one billion dollars on just one bankruptcy. So he handed that debt to the taxpayers. He agreed to pay contractors a certain amount then gave them less or nothing. He was so lawyered up it wasn’t worth it to take him to court over the rest of the balanced owed. He learned this stuff from his daddy.
exminister
Well-known member
Why U.S. Law Makes It Easy for Donald Trump To Stiff Contractors
By Roger Parloff September 30, 2016
One of the more startling moments in Monday night’s presidential debate was the one where Donald Trump appeared to admit that one of his business secrets is an unsavory one: He stiffs his contractors.
That Trump frequently follows such a practice has long been alleged in the press, with Trump issuing muddled responses—half denial, half admission. But what many Americans may not realize is that the prospect of a businessman systematically reneging on his promises as a negotiating strategy—known as “selling out one’s goodwill”—is a recognized danger of the way our contract law works. Fortunately, it’s one that few business people actually exploit, for several reasons.
The allegation that Trump is one of those businessmen who frequently refuses to fully pay his contractors was raised in a Wall Street Journal feature story last June, entitled “Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills,” and was then revisited in subsequent pieces by such media outlets as Fox News, Reuters, NBC News, and New York Magazine.
At the debate, Clinton confronted Trump in these terms: “I’ve met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald. I’ve met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do. We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It’s a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use.”
Trump first offered a half-hearted, pro forma defense: “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”
That response was similar to one he’d given the Wall Street Journal last June. “ ‘I love to hold back and negotiate when people don’t do good work,’” he told the paper. “ ‘If they do a good job, I won’t cut them at all. . . . It’s probably 1,000 to one where I pay.’”
But at the debate he went on to make another point. “First of all, they did get paid a lot,” he said. “But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.”
As he sees it, then, his first loyalty is to himself and his people, and not to the poor suckers on the other side of his contracts. It’s just business, not personal, as Mario Puzo might have put it.
What Trump’s talking about, and what he evidently sees as simply another example of his much-needed, hard-nosed business acumen, is actually a phenomenon that is fairly rare in business. It does occur, though, and has a name, and law students learn about it in their first-year contracts class. It’s called “selling out your good will.” My contracts professor, the late Arthur Leff, explained it in roughly the following terms.
In the U.S. we generally require each side in a lawsuit to pay its own attorneys fees. In England, in contrast, the general rule is that the loser pays the winner’s fees.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but suffice it to say that the American rule does have an unintended consequence in the realm of contracts. The most you can usually get in a contract case is what you were promised under the terms of the contract. (You can’t get punitive damages in a contract case; those are only available in tort cases, like where someone is injured in an accident.) So if one party to a contract—a carpet supplier, say—fully performs his end of a bargain, it actually becomes irrational, as a matter of cold mathematics, for the other party—a hotel owner, say—to pay everything he promised, assuming the hotel owner has no sense of right or wrong.
Here’s the simple math. Suppose a supplier contracts with a hotel owner to provide carpeting for a new hotel for $100,000. The supplier fully performs. The hotel owner refuses to pay. To recover, the supplier has to go to court, and the most he can possibly win is $100,000. But paying his attorneys fees is going to run him $30,000, leaving the supplier with a recovery worth only $70,000 on his $100,000 contract. As a practical matter, the supplier may lose his whole profit margin.
So an unprincipled hotel owner might say to the supplier, “Look, you’re up a creek. I’ll pay you $75,000. Sure, you’re screwed, but that’s better than you can do by going to court, so be reasonable.”
In practice this rarely happens, for two reasons.
First, most business people, despite what some people think, have integrity, a heart, and a conscience.
Second—and, okay, maybe this is the more important factor—most business people have ongoing relationships with their suppliers. So if you screw them, they’ll stop working with you. Moreover, word will get out, and other suppliers won’t work with you either.
There are two situations where the second principle doesn’t operate. The first are one-off contracts, where the parties are never going to deal with each other again. If a hotel owner builds one hotel in Rhode Island, for instance, and contracts with a local carpet supplier there, and then builds another in Abu Dhabi, and contracts with another local carpet supplier there, and then builds another in Las Vegas, and so on, he may be able to get away with serially stiffing local suppliers.
The other situation occurs when a company owner is about to give up his business—due to retirement, sale, or bankruptcy—and the callous owner no longer gives a damn about maintaining his business reputation. In that situation an unprincipled businessman might be willing to screw his contractors for the short-term, one-time gain—“selling out his goodwill.”
Fortunately, you don’t see that too often. That’s because most business people, like most other Americans, are fundamentally decent people. They believe in, and practice, the Golden Rule.
It’s one of those basic lessons that parents want to pass along to their children, as Melania Trump put it movingly in her speech at the Republican convention last July: “Your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise.”
http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/donald-trump-stiff-contractors/
By Roger Parloff September 30, 2016
One of the more startling moments in Monday night’s presidential debate was the one where Donald Trump appeared to admit that one of his business secrets is an unsavory one: He stiffs his contractors.
That Trump frequently follows such a practice has long been alleged in the press, with Trump issuing muddled responses—half denial, half admission. But what many Americans may not realize is that the prospect of a businessman systematically reneging on his promises as a negotiating strategy—known as “selling out one’s goodwill”—is a recognized danger of the way our contract law works. Fortunately, it’s one that few business people actually exploit, for several reasons.
The allegation that Trump is one of those businessmen who frequently refuses to fully pay his contractors was raised in a Wall Street Journal feature story last June, entitled “Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills,” and was then revisited in subsequent pieces by such media outlets as Fox News, Reuters, NBC News, and New York Magazine.
At the debate, Clinton confronted Trump in these terms: “I’ve met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald. I’ve met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do. We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It’s a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use.”
Trump first offered a half-hearted, pro forma defense: “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”
That response was similar to one he’d given the Wall Street Journal last June. “ ‘I love to hold back and negotiate when people don’t do good work,’” he told the paper. “ ‘If they do a good job, I won’t cut them at all. . . . It’s probably 1,000 to one where I pay.’”
But at the debate he went on to make another point. “First of all, they did get paid a lot,” he said. “But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.”
As he sees it, then, his first loyalty is to himself and his people, and not to the poor suckers on the other side of his contracts. It’s just business, not personal, as Mario Puzo might have put it.
What Trump’s talking about, and what he evidently sees as simply another example of his much-needed, hard-nosed business acumen, is actually a phenomenon that is fairly rare in business. It does occur, though, and has a name, and law students learn about it in their first-year contracts class. It’s called “selling out your good will.” My contracts professor, the late Arthur Leff, explained it in roughly the following terms.
In the U.S. we generally require each side in a lawsuit to pay its own attorneys fees. In England, in contrast, the general rule is that the loser pays the winner’s fees.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but suffice it to say that the American rule does have an unintended consequence in the realm of contracts. The most you can usually get in a contract case is what you were promised under the terms of the contract. (You can’t get punitive damages in a contract case; those are only available in tort cases, like where someone is injured in an accident.) So if one party to a contract—a carpet supplier, say—fully performs his end of a bargain, it actually becomes irrational, as a matter of cold mathematics, for the other party—a hotel owner, say—to pay everything he promised, assuming the hotel owner has no sense of right or wrong.
Here’s the simple math. Suppose a supplier contracts with a hotel owner to provide carpeting for a new hotel for $100,000. The supplier fully performs. The hotel owner refuses to pay. To recover, the supplier has to go to court, and the most he can possibly win is $100,000. But paying his attorneys fees is going to run him $30,000, leaving the supplier with a recovery worth only $70,000 on his $100,000 contract. As a practical matter, the supplier may lose his whole profit margin.
So an unprincipled hotel owner might say to the supplier, “Look, you’re up a creek. I’ll pay you $75,000. Sure, you’re screwed, but that’s better than you can do by going to court, so be reasonable.”
In practice this rarely happens, for two reasons.
First, most business people, despite what some people think, have integrity, a heart, and a conscience.
Second—and, okay, maybe this is the more important factor—most business people have ongoing relationships with their suppliers. So if you screw them, they’ll stop working with you. Moreover, word will get out, and other suppliers won’t work with you either.
There are two situations where the second principle doesn’t operate. The first are one-off contracts, where the parties are never going to deal with each other again. If a hotel owner builds one hotel in Rhode Island, for instance, and contracts with a local carpet supplier there, and then builds another in Abu Dhabi, and contracts with another local carpet supplier there, and then builds another in Las Vegas, and so on, he may be able to get away with serially stiffing local suppliers.
The other situation occurs when a company owner is about to give up his business—due to retirement, sale, or bankruptcy—and the callous owner no longer gives a damn about maintaining his business reputation. In that situation an unprincipled businessman might be willing to screw his contractors for the short-term, one-time gain—“selling out his goodwill.”
Fortunately, you don’t see that too often. That’s because most business people, like most other Americans, are fundamentally decent people. They believe in, and practice, the Golden Rule.
It’s one of those basic lessons that parents want to pass along to their children, as Melania Trump put it movingly in her speech at the Republican convention last July: “Your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise.”
http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/donald-trump-stiff-contractors/
It is not recorded that those eleven and Peter spoke in tongues beside they did in the Acts.
What they did was actual language that hearers understood.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Meshak,
Acts 2:1-4 seems plain enough to me.
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
So you ask who are "they"?
Let's look at the context
Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
They were the eleven apostles with Matthias thus making 12.
They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance.
Besides the twelve Acts has other records of others besides the 12 of Acts 1:26 who spoke in tongues.
Of course we also know that some of the Corinthian believers spoke in tongues, but they were misusing it, thus God, by Paul's ministry, reproved their error as given in I Corinthians 12-14
oatmeal
Well-known member
Well, I am glad they brought it up.
That's a good question, and I do not have a clear cut answer for that at this time.
So I ask, is the poor living off of the earnings of the wage earners stealing?
Yes, Trump knows how to work the system.
Good for him, but should we allow anyone to declare bankruptcy?
I say no. If a person is going to take that kind of risk, they should pay in full if they lose out.
If a person does not work who is able, neither should they eat II Thessalonians 3:10
Hunger is a good motive to get a job and work.
The federal government has no business running welfare programs.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Not at all,
I am not clear if declaring bankruptcy is stealing in the sight of God. It is not stealing in the sight of the federal government.
There is a scripture that states, "owe no man anything but to love one another" thus if you owe money you are in need of paying it back
Trump certainly is in violation of that.
But is it stealing, that I am not sure of
Of course, any and all Christians who have borrowed for a house, car, vacation, whatever are in violation of "owe no man anything"
So likewise any one who owes another is in violation of "owe no man anything"
Evidently, most people in the US are in violation of that truth.
And the Fed gov is the worst of all. Obama did nothing to curtail the debt, but spent mercilessly like a mad man. He is the worst of all
The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. We are not here to serve the govenrment but the government is to serve the people.
Why do they not represent me? I have been debt free for over 15 years, and I don't tax anyone. How insane that the Federal government should not live within its means seeing it does not earn its keep but taxes the wage earners
oatmeal
Well-known member
What is actually Caesar's?
The coins he minted? and what else?
What is God's? The earth and the fulness thereof, that would include the metals that Caesar used to make his coins.
Trump is not Caesar, he is not an emperor, though Obama wanted to be.
Trump is President.
Your point of questioning if the taxes I pay is stealing or not is a good one.
Since this is supposed to be a representative government, I want that I be represented.
I do not want to pay to support people who because they choose not to work, they should not eat.
I am debt free and have been for over 15 years. Why am I not being represented in government?
Why am I being burdened with almost 20 trillion dollars of debt?
Why is the federal government stealing from our children's and grandchildren's futures?
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
Good point