-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Those Evil Greedy Oil Companies
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
ray Marshall
New Member
OldRegular said:
Old Regular, I think this verse is in Proverbs, maybe not word for word, but the verse says that "Hell and the grave is never satisfied." correct me if I don't discribe it correctly.
ray Marshall
New Member
ray Marshall said:
Old Regular, I found it in Proverbs Ch27:20 "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied."
FTR, we have already had quasi- "nationalized" banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Uh- anyone remember what happened, there??
How about the quasi-governmental entities ConRail and Amtrak where government decided we ought to have trains!?
This is also applicable here, IMO.
Rep. Phillip Crane once made the observation that problems tend to increase by direct proportion to the time invested in them and amount of money spent on them by government. Generally, I agree with this POV. Why would we want the government to mess up the financial system any worse than it currently is? Current practices and policies of government are what got banks into the mess today, by effectively requiring banks and other similar institutions to allow otherwise unqualified borrowers more than they could ever be realistically able to repay. So we should exacerbate this problem, right?? Why should you be forced to subsidize me, just because I want to own a home, or own one that far exceeds my ability to repay??
For the sake of argument, let's say I can make the payments on a $50 K home fairly easily; unlikely on a $150 K home, and definitely not on a $250 K home. But I don't really prefer the $50 K home, which is limited to a basic manufactured home on a small lot, and the 'neighborhood' is not hardly as nice as I might prefer. Any question which one of these my bank will happily lend me the money for, while not even considering the others, since I am not looking for any government help of any kind, in this? Is there something allegedly wrong with such??
There are ~ 5 Billion outstanding shares of Exxon-Mobil, valued in today's market at roughly $80 per share, paying about 4% in dividends, annually. That 3 bucks or so, is hardly "ill gotten gain," IMO.
Not one person has ever been required to use the first product they make, nor buy the first share of stock. Why is the hatred directed at this, or any other companies such as Microsoft and Berkshire-Hathaway, for other outstanding examples?
BTW, once someone on this, or any other board, reaches the level of charitable giving of Warren Buffet and/or Bill Gates, maybe I will listen a bit better to the objections to their wealth. (Incidentally, the home of Warren Buffet was purchased more than 50 years ago for $31,500, where he still resides today, hardly a multi-million dollar mansion.)
Incidentally, I do know the answer to the unspoken premise given initially here by dragonfly, and the contrasting philosophies of myself with him and others of the same lack of thinking, and the whole of the two contrasting ideas were summed up brilliantly and succinctly in these words, many years ago.
Ed
Uh- anyone remember what happened, there??
How about the quasi-governmental entities ConRail and Amtrak where government decided we ought to have trains!?
This is also applicable here, IMO.
Rep. Phillip Crane once made the observation that problems tend to increase by direct proportion to the time invested in them and amount of money spent on them by government. Generally, I agree with this POV. Why would we want the government to mess up the financial system any worse than it currently is? Current practices and policies of government are what got banks into the mess today, by effectively requiring banks and other similar institutions to allow otherwise unqualified borrowers more than they could ever be realistically able to repay. So we should exacerbate this problem, right?? Why should you be forced to subsidize me, just because I want to own a home, or own one that far exceeds my ability to repay??
For the sake of argument, let's say I can make the payments on a $50 K home fairly easily; unlikely on a $150 K home, and definitely not on a $250 K home. But I don't really prefer the $50 K home, which is limited to a basic manufactured home on a small lot, and the 'neighborhood' is not hardly as nice as I might prefer. Any question which one of these my bank will happily lend me the money for, while not even considering the others, since I am not looking for any government help of any kind, in this? Is there something allegedly wrong with such??
There are ~ 5 Billion outstanding shares of Exxon-Mobil, valued in today's market at roughly $80 per share, paying about 4% in dividends, annually. That 3 bucks or so, is hardly "ill gotten gain," IMO.
Not one person has ever been required to use the first product they make, nor buy the first share of stock. Why is the hatred directed at this, or any other companies such as Microsoft and Berkshire-Hathaway, for other outstanding examples?
BTW, once someone on this, or any other board, reaches the level of charitable giving of Warren Buffet and/or Bill Gates, maybe I will listen a bit better to the objections to their wealth. (Incidentally, the home of Warren Buffet was purchased more than 50 years ago for $31,500, where he still resides today, hardly a multi-million dollar mansion.)
Incidentally, I do know the answer to the unspoken premise given initially here by dragonfly, and the contrasting philosophies of myself with him and others of the same lack of thinking, and the whole of the two contrasting ideas were summed up brilliantly and succinctly in these words, many years ago.
I agree.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator: