All Comments (4)

And yet Bgone all you did was just define more groups rich and poor to be precise. In my view if you would help the poor let rich keep enough money to hire them. The only way to truly help the poor is to give them a job and make sure the rich are able to compete among themselves for their services.

The current method of helping the poor which basically consist of stripping money out of the top half of the economy using 90% of it to grow government and stuffing the other ten percent back in at the bottom is little more than a disaster waiting to happen.

Well said Gary D.

The problem is government 'officially' recognizing groups and giving them special consideration. Taxes are always involved. And taxes go both ways. There's "tax breaks for the [already]rich" as an easy example.

I think the thing that brings us here with this discussion is the involvement of a group of 'official' tax breakers known as faiths -their opinions about isms and how they can get [more]involved in government.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul points out the danger of getting too involved with them. That should be warning enough to at least make a few folks rethink their position on tax breaks for already rich ministries. Going to hell is one thing but having to buy one's own ticket mandated by law sorta rubs salt into that painful wound.

Get religion out of government and as a by product get isms out of government. Else it's government of the people by the righteous for the benefit of the better class of people determined by free elections. This is the kingdom of God where free elections are not necessary for God will decide all. In the absence of God we can call upon rich ministers, and those that want to be rich, beginners and long timers alike to tell us what God decided.

The Devil Lucifer sure looks like the God thats behind that to me. Isms that is.

What you are describing is the nascent tribalism that has infested humanity ever since we discovered the planet was inhabited by people who were not our aunts, uncles, moms, dads, brothers, and sisters.

In most tribal societies the word for human beings is identical with the word for whatever self identifier the tribe used. What this meant was that if you weren't a member of the tribe you were not protected by tribe which meant you were fair game for what ever some member of the tribe wished to do with you and you could in fact even be considered as a food source. Things are better now and would be better still were it not for government having decided that some groups were worthy of special protection and others were not.

Until one moves beyond group think one will never be rid of racism or sexism. And You can't do that if the government is going to continue to identify us by groups extending beyond those who are citizens and those who are not.

Is there a way to end economic discrimination?

Those is first class shall be served complimentary cocktails and those in last class can buy them. Shouldn't there be complimentary cocktails for all?

The poor boy realized he was standing in a bed of gold at Sutter's mill. He reached down, picked it up and put it in his pocket. Did the gold belong to Sutter or him? Shouldn't all, every person alive have an equal share of the gold?

Speaking of gold, did you talk to the pope about returning the gold robbed by the Conquistadors?

Somebody gets the neck of the chicken and somebody gets the rumble seat. It's been that way ever since people found chicken to be tasty.

Didn't Jesus say, "the rich you will have with you always"? Jesus realized how important rich folks truly are. Without the rich we wouldn't be able to identify the poor so we can feel sorry for them.

Who shall the poor feel sorry for? We'll need to create an even poorer class.

Jesus also said, "sell all your earthly possessions and distribute the proceeds to the poor" and the rich man walked away shaking his head. The difference between the rich and the poor stays the same if the rich man gives all he has to the poor man. All that changes is who has the wealth.

Repeat after me: "I believe free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity." Get "In God we trust" off the money and put that in it's place.

Money follows money. Capital is money. Shouldn't all benefit from money risks taken or just those who risk their money? It turns out that all do benefit with some living in Westwood and others in South Central. Those living in South Central must get themselves over to Westwood. The nice part is they can but only if they play by the rules the first rule being, "I believe free market capitalism is..."

There is no economic discrimination, just the perception there is. That perception springs in part from a false creed, "I believe in God the father...." No Stupid!! "I believe free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity."

Need I notice the other false creed only leads people to hell?