• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

House Passes Trump-Backed Rescissions Package Slashing $9 BILLION in Bloated Spending — FOREIGN AID, NPR, and PBS on the Chopping Block — Two Republic

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes, you are correct, the bible's safety net I offered concentrates on God's people. While the poor will always be with us, should we even bother with helping those who are not God's people? Well, Peter did say silver and gold I have none but rise and be healed.. Based on that money does seem to be an option to help others, Give to them that ask, loving your neighbor are not just for Christians. It rains on the just and unjust, so there is a sort of common grace that God wants people to live. Christian charity also does glorify God. So I think an earlier post talked about government themselves boosting faith based giving, which is a great idea, I know that occurs in some ways in various state governments but yes hopefully we will see more of that.
Of course money is always an option. I dont carry a liaf of bread around with me. I don't believe we should only give to fellow church members either. We have helped neighbors and others who we knew were having a hard time with something.

But no where in scripture does it state thats our job to make sure no one is in poverty. And if we are going to claim scripture as a reason why our taxes should be high enough to make sure we have no poor in America then we should also follow scriptures that command us how to live in all facets of life including those who don't follow tge commands.

Its wrong for us to pick and choose which scriptures we should expect everyone to follow and be enforced by government.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Right, and you have your opinion about it and I have mine. What I object to is the naming of it. You call it free market capitalism when it is not. What you are describing is neoliberalism, to give it its correct technical name. If that is the economic system you favor, good for you. This is a free country and we can advocate for any economic system we want. The fact that you won't give it it's correct name is suspicious. The other thing which annoys me is that many proponents of neoliberalism promote it by quoting 2 Thessalonians on the subject of work, as if the "work" of the Bible is identical to the concept of employment in a neoliberal economy. This also makes me suspicious, as if we were being sold a pig in a poke.
Look i dont care what its called. I know what I support. No I'm not describing neoliberalism.

I support free market capitalism. Which involves not eating if you aren't producing something that other people want. Free market is I produce and you buy or produce something value I want. And I dont get to decide what its worth. Because if you dont think its worth that then you wont buy it and my work is now worth nothing if I get nothing.

If I need a worker then you and I can decide what your work is worth. If I make widgets and come in and say your work value is a million bucks I can say no its worth ten bucks then you can choose not to work for me ir I can choose to pay you a million.
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
4,538
4,451
Davao City
Visit site
✟305,223.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
People aren't lifted out of poverty by taking other people's money. No nation has ever been made wealthy by other nations handing over their wealth... ...We could give away our entire military budget and some other nation like China would attack us.
Those examples wouldn't work in alleviating global poverty anyway. I'm not sure why you felt any of those methods would be necessary.

Christians could give away all they have and there would still be poverty in the world.
That's a certainty, because if Christians gave away all they have, they would become impoverished.
 
Upvote 0

Say it aint so

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2020
3,069
2,640
27
Seattle
✟161,696.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
The 97% figure has been debunked more than once.

Then there was climate fate and the following two years later with scientists admitting that,

1. Scientists are concealing underlying data thar doesn't match their conclusions
2. These scientists believe their cause is a political one rather than a scientific one
3. Many of them have admitted that the science is actually weak and dependant on data manipulation.

Now I dont know about this guy from 1976. But I do know he was completely wrong on his conclusions about the timeliness. Which make his entire findings very suspect. And quite frankly follows climate science to a tee.

Look I'm not going to change my mind and neither are you so dont bother trying to prove me wrong with more suspect data from suspect people who have been proven to be unreliable and wrong far too often.

Let's focus on the things we can agree on which us the climate is changing. And what we can do to mitigate the effects that will have on us.
Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW, but disputes C13′s methods. We show that T14′s claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14′s claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%. --Science Direct
Kind of like Flat Earthers, I have no desire to have discussion with climate change deniers who think scientists are cooking the books Trump style.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: 7thKeeper
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,496
4,257
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Look i dont care what its called. I know what I support. No I'm not describing neoliberalism.

I support free market capitalism. Which involves not eating if you aren't producing something that other people want. Free market is I produce and you buy or produce something value I want. And I dont get to decide what its worth. Because if you dont think its worth that then you wont buy it and my work is now worth nothing if I get nothing.

If I need a worker then you and I can decide what your work is worth. If I make widgets and come in and say your work value is a million bucks I can say no its worth ten bucks then you can choose not to work for me ir I can choose to pay you a million.
Yet you argue for a system in which pay and working conditions are set unilaterally by the employer and the worker can only take it or leave it. Forget for a moment about whether that's right and wrong or "left" or "right" We're just discussing what that model is called, and it is not technically a free market in labor, even if it turns out to be the best one. Mind you, there is nothing "magical" about a free market. It's not an ideology, merely a theoretical model which is rarely perfectly achieved and is in fact not really suitable for the delivery of every good or service.
I'm not just being pedantic, but in economic theory a free market is well defined and I see a tendency in conservatives to redefine a free market as one which is "free" of government regulation, which is nefarious and has egregious effects well beyond the labor market.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yet you argue for a system in which pay and working conditions are set unilaterally by the employer and the worker can only take it or leave it.
I wasn't arguing for anything. I was just indicating what is. And there is nothing preventing an employee asking for more pay. Right now in the system we have an employee can sit with an employer and unilaterally figure something out. Even in a free market the employer can say no, correct? In free market the employer still can set a wage limit or limits on benefits and conditions.
I'm not just being pedantic, but in economic theory a free market is well defined and I see a tendency in conservatives to redefine a free market as one which is "free" of government regulation, which is nefarious and has egregious effects well beyond the labor market.
I don't think we can ever be free of government regulation. Nor should we be. No regulation could be disastrous on many levels Some regulation is necessary. But we are over regulated now which also has negative effects. A balance needs to found.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,496
4,257
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't arguing for anything. I was just indicating what is. And there is nothing preventing an employee asking for more pay. Right now in the system we have an employee can sit with an employer and unilaterally figure something out. Even in a free market the employer can say no, correct? In free market the employer still can set a wage limit or limits on benefits and conditions.

I don't think we can ever be free of government regulation. Nor should we be. No regulation could be disastrous on many levels Some regulation is necessary. But we are over regulated now which also has negative effects. A balance needs to found.
During the post-Covid inflation period when food prices were rising even faster it was said that five companies control 80% of our groceries. Actual research shows that this is not quite right--it's four companies that control 79% of the most widely purchased staples, but you get the idea.
Republican leadership thinks this is a good thing--and they have bamboozled their followers into believing that it is an inevitable and desirable consequence of the hallowed "free market." Democratic leadership agrees with them about it, too, and have championed neoliberlism since the Clinton administration--except for the Berniecrats, but you mustn't listen to them, because they are evil socialists who don't want to play the Democrats' identity politics game.
 
Upvote 0