Business Bankruptcy Law | Small Business Bankruptcy Laws

October 4th of this year, Michael Moore posted a blog on his website aimed at those going to church that Sunday morning. He eventually arrived at this point: “I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus… taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” At the end of this letter to churchgoers, he makes this closing comment about Jesus and the feeding of the 5,000: “Either he was the first socialist or his disciples were really bad at packing lunch.”

Was Jesus Christ really a socialist? Well, first, socialism must have a definition. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has 3 definitions for the word, and they all involve collectivism, governmental ownership of the means of production in a society, and the lack of private property rights by individuals. Socialism is much closer to diet-communism, containing all the potential for a collectivist society without quite so much bloodshed. The goal of all Marxist theories (including socialism, fascism, and communism) was to eventually create a paradise on earth. This paradise would be governed by the principle that each person was not unique. That person simply worked as part of the whole, putting in as much as they could and being given only what they needed by the all-powerful government.

Now that socialism is defined, the work of Jesus must be put into a similar light for comparison. Jesus was sent to Earth as the Son of God, preaching salvation for belief in Him, and of a paradise AFTER this life is over. Jesus did in fact do many wondrous acts for people throughout His ministry, including healing the sick, feeding multitudes through miracles, and even raising others from the dead. Jesus once said, “Give, and it will be given to you…” (Luke 6:38a), and on another occasion stated, “Sell your possessions and give to charity.” (Luke 12:33a). In His interaction with the “rich, young ruler” in Luke Chapter 18, Jesus told the rich man, who argued that he had followed the law, to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Later, once the rich man went away sad, Jesus said, “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

So what comparison can be made here? Both socialism and Jesus do indeed advocate giving. The difference comes in the motivation for the giving, the method of the giving, and in the scope of the giving. Jesus advocated giving to others in order to store up treasures in heaven. Socialism advocates giving to others in order to do your duty to society, and to eventually create a collectivist paradise. Jesus told people to give freely, since God loves a cheerful giver. Socialism doesn’t really care about the mindset in which the individual gives up possessions and liberty, for it is taken by force in the end anyway. Jesus did not teach that one should wait until government takes the money to give it to the poor; he said to do it personally so that it can be used in the furtherance of the ministry. Socialism actually prefers government redistribution of wealth to personal charity, so it makes personal charity more difficult and redistribution of wealth the norm.

Dr. Timothy Faber, pastor at East Tipp Baptist Church in Lafayette, disagreed that Jesus was a socialist. He stated, “The ability to own personal property, to recognize that people have the right to have possessions, is a God-given right.” Dr. Faber referenced 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, where believers are urged not to be a burden upon anyone. This is a clear message for self-reliance. 1 Thessalonians also talks about personal responsibility, saying to “lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” Clearly, the Bible doesn’t advocate any type of reliance upon the government, which happens to be a central tenet of socialism.

As far as who should be doing the giving, and at what level, Dr. Faber explained that the Bible makes it clear that individuals are to care for themselves and their family first, and then for others within their community. He pointed to 1 Timothy 5:8 which states, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How can one provide for their family unless they have a job and keep some money for themselves? How can one raise a family unless they have possessions, such as a house? Dr. Faber went on to say “The Bible makes it clear that the church or individuals are to meet the needs of the poor, not the government.” He made it clear that one teaching of Scripture (being self-reliant) can’t be ignored in order to fulfill another (giving to the poor.)

Leftist individuals would argue that churches don’t give enoug

October 4th of this year, Michael Moore posted a blog on his website aimed at those going to church that Sunday morning. He eventually arrived at this point: “I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus… taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” At the end of this letter to churchgoers, he makes this closing comment about Jesus and the feeding of the 5,000: “Either he was the first socialist or his disciples were really bad at packing lunch.”

Was Jesus Christ really a socialist? Well, first, socialism must have a definition. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has 3 definitions for the word, and they all involve collectivism, governmental ownership of the means of production in a society, and the lack of private property rights by individuals. Socialism is much closer to diet-communism, containing all the potential for a collectivist society without quite so much bloodshed. The goal of all Marxist theories (including socialism, fascism, and communism) was to eventually create a paradise on earth. This paradise would be governed by the principle that each person was not unique. That person simply worked as part of the whole, putting in as much as they could and being given only what they needed by the all-powerful government.

Now that socialism is defined, the work of Jesus must be put into a similar light for comparison. Jesus was sent to Earth as the Son of God, preaching salvation for belief in Him, and of a paradise AFTER this life is over. Jesus did in fact do many wondrous acts for people throughout His ministry, including healing the sick, feeding multitudes through miracles, and even raising others from the dead. Jesus once said, “Give, and it will be given to you…” (Luke 6:38a), and on another occasion stated, “Sell your possessions and give to charity.” (Luke 12:33a). In His interaction with the “rich, young ruler” in Luke Chapter 18, Jesus told the rich man, who argued that he had followed the law, to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Later, once the rich man went away sad, Jesus said, “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

So what comparison can be made here? Both socialism and Jesus do indeed advocate giving. The difference comes in the motivation for the giving, the method of the giving, and in the scope of the giving. Jesus advocated giving to others in order to store up treasures in heaven. Socialism advocates giving to others in order to do your duty to society, and to eventually create a collectivist paradise. Jesus told people to give freely, since God loves a cheerful giver. Socialism doesn’t really care about the mindset in which the individual gives up possessions and liberty, for it is taken by force in the end anyway. Jesus did not teach that one should wait until government takes the money to give it to the poor; he said to do it personally so that it can be used in the furtherance of the ministry. Socialism actually prefers government redistribution of wealth to personal charity, so it makes personal charity more difficult and redistribution of wealth the norm.

Dr. Timothy Faber, pastor at East Tipp Baptist Church in Lafayette, disagreed that Jesus was a socialist. He stated, “The ability to own personal property, to recognize that people have the right to have possessions, is a God-given right.” Dr. Faber referenced 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, where believers are urged not to be a burden upon anyone. This is a clear message for self-reliance. 1 Thessalonians also talks about personal responsibility, saying to “lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” Clearly, the Bible doesn’t advocate any type of reliance upon the government, which happens to be a central tenet of socialism.

As far as who should be doing the giving, and at what level, Dr. Faber explained that the Bible makes it clear that individuals are to care for themselves and their family first, and then for others within their community. He pointed to 1 Timothy 5:8 which states, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How can one provide for their family unless they have a job and keep some money for themselves? How can one raise a family unless they have possessions, such as a house? Dr. Faber went on to say “The Bible makes it clear that the church or individuals are to meet the needs of the poor, not the government.” He made it clear that one teaching of Scripture (being self-reliant) can’t be ignored in order to fulfill another (giving to the poor.)

Leftist individuals would argue that churches don’t give enoug

I checked the healthcare rankings and awknowledged a couple of things that came to my attention. The ones that are ranked ahead of ours either have no funded army, currently not in a war, and easier to maintain people because it’s a smaller country. So in my opinion it is somewhat irrelevant to our situation. And the ones that have a lower ranking either are poor countries, have governmental issues, in a war, or all of the above.

How can you solve problems by spending more money? If we spend more for this reform, which we already know it is a socialist provider, costs too much at the moment. Which means we are going to have to tax everyone because it is too expensive and our country will go further down in debt not bankruptcy, because we are already well below bankrupt. But bow down to the current administration and follow whatever they ask, which leads to socialism (i.e. communism) because we have no other choice, but to follow whatever they want us to do, either it be pay for a single payer healthcare because we know that people who cant afford private anymore will go to a public option and then private healthcare will go out of business, unless they give out tax breaks, which I doubt. Just like Private universities give out grants and scholarships, to make this work we need tax breaks.

This also will affect the healthcare profession vastly because 40 million new patients and no new doctors? This will lead to longer lines, the demeanor from your docors will go down as well as the quality because of more work with the likelyhood of less time to finish all the patients.This is not including the freeloaders. Cmon now education cost too much to become a physician, surgeon etc… College students who go for that profession are already in debt after their studies so the result of a increase in doctors won’t happen, when americans have less money with the increase of taxes.

I just heard that obama plans on extending the school year out because our education isn’t satisfactory. This will result in a increase in taxes year out. That is ridiculous. Furthermore, that is not the problem, because we have what 2 and a half months of summer vacation? What he want to decrease Christmas vacation as well? What he really needs to do is focus on getting quality teachers, better curriculum, and more funding for more school supplies. You are already brain dead after 8 hours of class. So 10 to 11 hours of class won’t do any good.

How about the texting problem we have in America. That is a problem indeed. But going on about banning all phones from cars? People are still going to do it anyways… They just want to ticket more people and get more money out of the American peoples pocket. Might as well ban all drive thru’s because you don’t have your complete attention on the road when you are eating while you drive.

I’ve heard from two different friends in DC (they don’t know each other) that both Bank of America and Shiti Group – err… Citi Group – are to be "Swedished" in the coming days. That’s essentially an ultra-rapid process of Chapter 11 bankruptcy – the banks will be nationalized, placed into receivership, all of their off-the-books assets will be pulled onto their balance sheets, and they will be dissolved and sold off in the private capital markets.

Of course, I’m sure this will be met with the standard cries of "socialism," though this isn’t really much different than a standard Chapter 11. However, as I was thinking about this, I started to wonder – what if it really does come down to a choice between outright socialism for a time, and total economic collapse?

Hypothetically, at what point would conservatives be willing to bite the bullet if it really came down to it? For instance, if:

You were faced with the prospect of losing all of your savings?

If the "do nothing" course meant more than 50% unemployment?

60% unemployment?

80%?

90%?

95%?

How about if hospitals started going bust, and people started dying for lack of medical care?

If food manufacturers and supermarkets started closing, and mass starvation looked to be on the horizon?

To be clear: I don’t want a socialist society. I’ve met President Obama, and I know for a fact that he doesn’t; he and his administration hate that this is their first order of business. I’m not talking ideology here, I’m talking pragmatism: assuming that nationalized industries would be later re-privatized, what would you be unwilling to sacrifice on the altar of free markets?

As for me, I wouldn’t go along with such extreme measures unless it was clear that the collapse would present a tangible danger to American lives. I think that’s a pretty sensible position – what’s yours?
"There’s no such thing as temporary socialism"

The socialist period in the UK lasted from 1945-1979.

China has rolled back socialism somewhat (though not nearly to the extent most think – the state still controls 80% or so of the economy), and is now a mixed economy.

India’s economy used to be nearly as rigidly planned as the USSR, and that was a temporary phenomenon.

There – in 30 seconds, I’ve produced three examples obliterating this right-wing talking point. Why do conservatives insist on making demonstrably false claims?
My God… I asked a question that is nothing more than a simple thought experiment, and these hacks can’t put aside their partisan nonsense for even a second. Pathetic, just pathetic. If capitalism had only you free-market zealots to defend it, it would have been done for in the 1930’s.
End Fed,

We have never had "true capitalism" as you call it. Never. Nor has any other country. Nor will there ever be a country which does. That is because it is an IDEAL, a nice (depending on your perspective) notion like racial equality. Society can go in that direction, but it will never actually achieve the ideal – it can’t, it’s not meant to be achieved, it’s just a concept.

It is not Socialism, don’t let anybody mislead you folks. In this time and era, seeing our economy plunge there is only one way out. When even the big and rich corporates are going bankruptcy there will be no hope for small businesses and middle class life. It is a fact. So, I don’t think there is anything wrong to bail out the poor first, so they can have a chance to start their life too. This is how small businesses start, borrowing a loan either from a bank or credit union. The only difference is, this time this small business starters will get that money from the Fed, by taxing the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR corporates to fund small businesses. Everyone is a winner.

What do you think?
The International Rescue Committee already offers such a program, and it is so effective that it helps refugees start their own businesses.
This question is a question regarding corporate taxation, not personal taxation to fund others.

Don’t get it mixed it up.

If this new law takes effect, can you imagine how it will effect us all?

(For some reason I have communism(socialism) in the back of my mind regarding this.)

SOURCE: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/save_handmade_toys_from_the_cpsia

We all may be thinking it will be great to test all these toys for lead, but what about all the small business owners who cannot afford it? Second hand stores will not be able to afford it, you won’t be able to legally sell kid’s toys at yard sales, on ebay, to any person at all. If you make things by hand at home, you will have to stop unless you can afford the testing. One person stated it would cost ,500 to test one bib she makes.
Jay, snopes is not a reliable source.
Check out this local news source:
http://www.kfbb.com/news/local/37309359.html