Apparently I'm the only one on here who is OK with some socialism. I'm sure you'll all burn me at the stake but I think social security and public education are pretty good things. I spent some time in Canada and wholeheartedly support heath care too (OK, obamacare is super weak... I know). Nobody should be without it and I don't see much difference in our employers footing the bill or the government, either way it's not money in our pocket. My old man has to keep working so my he and my mom can have health care, I for one think that sucks!
- Is Socialism 'The American Way' ? -
- Thread starter The_Outlaw
- Start date
Really, does that mean that the left doesn't worship money? Are you implying that the left only cares about taking care of the less fortunate? Boy have you been drinking the kool-aid. I'm willing to bet if you cared to lift the curtain you will find more rich fat cats on the left than on the right. The poor under educated deadbeats nursing on the government sow are the power base of the left. The ones that learn there is freedom in hard work, being self sufficient and being free from government dependency, will destroy the left power base.
It would appear that some who are trying to equate Christian values with socialistic theology are showing how shallow their understanding of the Word of God is drawing on particular passages to promote their political and social values. We, as believers, are commanded in scripture to give those who are in need and can't help themselves a hand up. We are not, however, commanded to give those who refuse to help themselves a hand out. II Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone WILL NOT WORK, neither shall he eat.
convos
New member
Woody - you are absolutely correct. This notion that somehow Christ's example propogated socialism is absurd. There is a major difference between rendering unto Ceasar, and rendering unto God. The Founding Fathers understood this - and without argument created the most Christian society the world has ever seen. It recognizes the fact that God given unalienable rights are not provided by government, and government's sole purpose should be to defend those rights; it has neither the power to grant or deny those rights. John Locke argued this and was a huge influence on our Founders. The framers of the Constitution understood from the Bible and the wisdom of experience that human nature was corruptible. They also knew that human government could not change human nature.
The prophet Isaiah describes the corruption that bad leadership can bring to all levels of social structure: "For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and those who are led by them are destroyed . . . For everyone is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks folly" (Isaiah 9:16-17 [16] For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
[17] Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
It is for this reason, understanding the flawed nature of man that the Founders created a representative republic with checks and balances so that the corruption of both the governed and governors would not be able to easily subvert consistent rule of law. It protects the people from tyranny, and protects the government from mob rule (why we are not a straight line democracy).
In the end, according to the Sermon on the Mount, the only truly perfect form of government will be established when Christ returns, and it will reign for 1000 years on this earth. Until then, i will choose our system as the best, most consistent, and most in keeping with individual unalienable God given rights, over socialism any day.
The prophet Isaiah describes the corruption that bad leadership can bring to all levels of social structure: "For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and those who are led by them are destroyed . . . For everyone is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks folly" (Isaiah 9:16-17 [16] For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
[17] Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
It is for this reason, understanding the flawed nature of man that the Founders created a representative republic with checks and balances so that the corruption of both the governed and governors would not be able to easily subvert consistent rule of law. It protects the people from tyranny, and protects the government from mob rule (why we are not a straight line democracy).
In the end, according to the Sermon on the Mount, the only truly perfect form of government will be established when Christ returns, and it will reign for 1000 years on this earth. Until then, i will choose our system as the best, most consistent, and most in keeping with individual unalienable God given rights, over socialism any day.
BC1
,
No, despite being a capitalist I think SS and public education are a good thing. Life can change in a heartbeat and someone can go from earner to disabled through no fault of their own. We don't just throw people away. Kids need to eat and have proper healthcare even if their parents' are deadbeats. People should not be allowed to suffer. We can't penalize kids, the disabled or elderly. And public education benefits everyone. My problem with absolute socialism is that it taxes me to buy Jamal a new HD TV so he can sit on his ass and watch Springer before heading out to sell a little dope. That I won't pay for.
convos
New member
Gregg - i would agree that not all were christian - and i have seen literature defending both. However, if you do a little research you would know that denominational affiliations were a matter of public record back then. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith. Furthermore, it is relatively evident if you read any literature by George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity. John Jay was, as you said, not a big fan of Catholicism, and many weren't - considering they left their home countries to escape Catholic repression.
My constitution also states in the first amendment that the making of any law respecting the establishment of religion is prohibited. Meaning, the government can't play favorites to faith - ensuring the freedom of religion we enjoy as a nation - sadly becoming more and more infringed.
You also failed to address the crux of my post - which is that Christ did not propagate socialism. it is an interesting leftist tactic to use faith, and Jesus in particular, to justify political ideology when they neither understand faith, or comprehend Christ (not true for all, i am generalizing - but typically the talking point justifications are easily weeded out and a little counter questioning will reveal at most an academic knowledge of the Bible without true comprehension that only comes with acceptance of its truth).
My constitution also states in the first amendment that the making of any law respecting the establishment of religion is prohibited. Meaning, the government can't play favorites to faith - ensuring the freedom of religion we enjoy as a nation - sadly becoming more and more infringed.
You also failed to address the crux of my post - which is that Christ did not propagate socialism. it is an interesting leftist tactic to use faith, and Jesus in particular, to justify political ideology when they neither understand faith, or comprehend Christ (not true for all, i am generalizing - but typically the talking point justifications are easily weeded out and a little counter questioning will reveal at most an academic knowledge of the Bible without true comprehension that only comes with acceptance of its truth).
SR40c
Done told her once...
Socialism is NOT the American way. Any idiot that is "willing" to take 15 minutes to research can see that. That is why for the first time in my life, I have refused to call the person currently freeloading in the White House "My President". A "Socialist" will never be "my President". Ever. When the "United States" becomes Socialist, it will just become another bastardized term for something that the Progressive Socialist movement has successfully hijacked.
Of course, this is only happening only because "Americans" have become lazy, stupid, and unable and or unwilling to think for them selves.
Of course, this is only happening only because "Americans" have become lazy, stupid, and unable and or unwilling to think for them selves.
We could debate the issue using a play on words. Let me offer this in the way of clarification. There is a vast difference between judging and accessing. Over the past 29 years of serving in the ministry I have seized many opportunities to extend a helping hand to those who for whatever reason and through no fault of their own had fallen on hard times. I have done this both personally and through the resources of the church. However, I have also seen many who prey on the church and Christian believers as a means of subsidizing their unwillingness to fend for themselves and in many cases their family. I'm sure I haven't called every shot right but do try to be a good steward of the resources God has given myself and the churches I've pastored. I'm not meaning to brag on myself but rather to illustrate there is a difference between those who can't but would and those who can but won't.
convos
New member
Yes - we as Christians are called to love our neighbor. but it is an individual thing; being a Christian is a personal relationship, not group-think. If you take a society that mandates that every person give what they have to someone who does not, and it becomes law - well then you have taken the heart out of the act. There is no commandment from God saying that you have to do this or that or the other thing for someone who has not. the 10 commandments are very simple measures that allow society to function (one of which is "Thou shalt not covet...). everything else is personal relationship with God driven. if you want to give to charity, by all means give to charity, as that is a good and wonderful and oftentimes selfless thing. it also has the added benefit of knowing exactly what cause you are giving to - not letting someone else choose for you. Again, don't equate our republic's viewpoint on socialism negate individual faith. mandating matters of the heart does nothing to improve your relationship with Christ. If you personally choose to give up everything and follow Him, you are a stronger man than i am, and you will have riches in Heaven.
convos
New member
Gladly - First though - lets tackle the concept that non believers such as Marx are deeply influenced by Christianity - it is one thing to acknowledge the Bible as a book, a piece of moral literature, another to accept it as historically accurate, and another to accept it as Truth - i know many non-believers who are fluent in the Bible and can quote it all day long, but they don't understand it. they can't see the forest for the trees. they see it as a book written by old superstitious guys and miss the fact that it is the only Holy book that is peer reviewed. (gnaw on that one for a while :happy: not only peer reviewed internally -look at the gospels - but peer reviewed by several counsels throughout history ultimately canonized to ensure its integrity. )
Second part - the first amendment was never intended to be interpreted as "Separation of church and state" it was intended to protect both from assuming power. Our geniuses in elected official capacity have removed the words "God, Christ, Christian, etc." from schools, public buildings etc. i am actually surprised they haven't removed "in God we trust" from our currency. States had the rights to set up official state religions if they wanted to - again, it was a measure to protect from abuse and overgrowth, keep its power limited. now you hear all kinds cry foul when any elected official uses any semblance of faith to influence any creation of policy. its completely absurd. All the first amendment says it that the federal government cannot establish a national religion. and whether or not they realize it they are doing just that - erecting science as the model that all must follow.
convos
New member
The "righteous right" want to make sure that we as a society are establishing a system that motivates and inspires people to strive to be their best. We have no issue with helping out our fellow man - but if we so help out our fellow man we have to make sure that we are helping one who needs it, not one who makes a living from it. all the talk about welfare reform and whatnot is not an attempt to abolish any semblance of charity. our problem is not that we don't want to give, our problem is that too many only want to receive. when you make handouts easy, you cultivate dependency. as that culture grows, less people work, less people pay taxes (they receive them instead) and our entire country goes to **** overnight.
Gregg - did you know that the first settlers here tried to build a community based on more socialistic values? they tried a system where everyone shared everything. it didnt work. they found out that people who were lazy did not contribute to hunting, farming, gathering, or anything, and then once winter came did nothing but suckle off of those who labored. So they re-wrote the system. they took their community and divided it up and gave individual control to land instead of it existing as a collective. there were still those who didn't work, usually because they weren't able, and they were taken care of - but the lazy folk got off their ass and made damned sure they had provisions set aside for the winter. they weren't perfect and it took a few years for them to learn the skills to do its as effectively as others, and neighbors were there to help through the learning curve.
the problem with socialism (or progressivism, whatever you want to call it) even in small doses is that it assumes that people are naturally intrinsically good and desire to do what is right and noble. if that were true, communism would work. the fact is - people are not intrinsically good, they are intrinsically selfish. you don't need to teach your kids to steal a cookie from the cookie jar - you have to teach them to restrain themselves and follow the rules or there will be consequences. it is for this reason that setting up expectations of personal accountability works.
convos
New member
you are the kind of left winger i like - someone who legitimately cares and not out of a sense of elitism. unfortunately, not all rich people are saved... and i am glad that you know that the eye of the needle is an actual place, not a metaphor. bravo!
fstroupe
New member
Addressing this post would take far too long and no one would read the whole thing anyway. Socialism (mostly) has created the situation that health care is in today. The biggest problem is government involvement in the free market.
Are your parents ineligible for Medicare? Eligibility for nearly all Americans is 65.5 years old. Eligibility for 100% Social Security depends on birth year. I was born Oct 1958 and I think at 77 years, three months I will be eligible. I think being born sometime in 1964 eligibility comes at 70.
Personally I don't expect to retire, at least not what has been considered retirement for the past 50 years or so. The entire concept of retirement is less than 100 years old...life expectancy of an American male was only 58 years old when SS was created, so most people weren't going to live long enough to draw it anyway. Which is one of the main reasons it was never supposed to survive past 1960 anyway.
There was a study released recently that shows that the average wait to see a specialist in Canada is over two months. (9.5 weeks to be exact) I have yet to talk to a middle-aged Canadian that is at all satisfied with their health care system.
fstroupe
New member
Thank you for digging a little deeper.
Socialism is socialism, wherever it exists. It is a means to control people under the guise of "helping people", and "fairness". People in the US who are dependent on social programs (somewhere around 60 million people) are pretty much just as controlled as the people of Cuba or North Korea. There is little to no chance for them to escape their lot in life. A huge number of them do not even realize that it is possible to better one's self, generations of people who have never held a job.
I suppose the question is: "Is this by design?" The United States' "War on Poverty" started in 1965. We have spent seventeen trillion dollars....SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS....to eliminate poverty in the US. Most countries in the world have never had seventeen trillion dollars over the lifetime of the country. We have spent only 14 trillion dollars on war...from the American Revolution to the Global War on Terror.
Yet....the poverty rate is exactly the same as it was in 1965.
One other thing to consider there....the president that began the "War on Poverty" with his "The Great Society", was a known racist, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was this compassionate, benevolent, lover of people of all races. Yeah, right.
The problem here is government involvement. As I mentioned in the above post, it is mostly because the government got involved in the health care system that it has gotten so expensive.
In the past, the poor could go to the "health department" and be treated. Everyone received a decent public high school education. The elderly poor were taken care of. But this wasn't good enough, it wasn't "fair". So Medicare and Medicaid was created, and sent the poor and elderly to the same doctors as everyone else. But the government payed much less than everyone else did. So the health care providers had to raise their prices to make up the difference. The poor got free college, but everyone else had to pay. After 25-30 years of that, costs are ridiculous, and a bachelors degree pretty much means nothing.
We had the same thing during the depression of the 1930s. But today, it is hard to imagine, there is somewhere between 70 and 80 million working aged people not working in the us. (that number does not include the 23 million "unemployed"....don't ask, it is purposely complicated) 40 million of these are people who have never worked, or haven't worked in decades.
I'm talking somewhere around 15 times the population of New Zealand not working. Our government is supporting them and more.
If anyone feels this way in the United States it is the left. I know that most of Europe has kept a 10% or so unemployment rate for a couple of decades. We are currently being told by Obama, the Federal Reserve chairman, and others, that our current 8%-9% unemployment rate (which is actually about 17%, again the numbers are purposely confusing) is probably the norm for many years to come.
4.5 years ago our unemployment rate was 4.3%, which is pretty much 100% employment.
Our "middle class" is not at that point yet, but it is coming if there is no relief.
Obviously you are talking about America. You are dead wrong. You have been duped by the propaganda of the left, this is not how it is.
There is one and only one solution to "these pressing problems". That is job creation. How are jobs created? By "the wealthiest in our society" taking chances, risking capital, by starting businesses, building factories, etc. Having a job is not a right....it is a privilege that was created by a wealthy person.
Here in America, it is becoming impossible to make real money from a business, due to overregulation and taxation. If an investor is not going to get a good return on his money, he is not going to risk it. That is the way it works.
As far as the "rich not paying their fair share", here in America, the richest 20% of Americans pay 70% of all taxes, the bottom 20% pay 3/5ths of one percent. Considering that just over 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all....make your own judgement.
So looking back....Where did that $17 Trillion come from? Governments do not make money....they confiscate it....mostly from the rich.
BTW, I am not rich. I am somewhere towards the bottom of that bottom 20%.
Why do I not beat up the rich? Because I am very proud that a rich man gave me a job.
convos
New member
Pretty much exactly what i was going to say. Capitalism isn't perfect, but the more you try to make it perfect and "fair" the worse it gets. Our housing collapse had nothing to do with a failure of capitalism - it had to do with regulation forcing banks to give loans to those who did not qualify so that they could buy a house. Our rich pay the highest taxes in the world right now. None of the problems you see in this country financially are because folks aren't paying enough money to government - all of our financial problems exist because our government insists on spending more money than it has over and over and over again. Most of us conservative types believe in smaller government - scale it way back and make it look like its much younger self. it has put on a lot of pounds (kilograms for you not american folk
fftopic
over the years. refresh our moral values that we have been voting out of existence - ensure that our basic rights as outlined in the bill of rights are pounded into our heads. we disagree with the left less because they want to help everyone - but because they want to help everyone without contributing anything themselves. they want to rewrite our rights because as law they get in the way of their grand agenda. our President has already made mention that he wants to re-write our bill of rights, he especially dislikes the wording of the first amendment - and he would like to eliminate the second. the first can't exist without the second - as the second is the only way to defend the first. you get rid of those, then government has complete control and we will no longer exist as a constitutional representative republic. it may look like one from a quick glance but will be anything but.
