Christian Socialism

[JoyJuice]

You do realize that the first income tax, as it were, wasn't instituted until 1862, but was repealed in 1872, and that the national income tax didn't become permanent until 1913?

Yes, those dates are from history and therefore it is.....a historical way of life.

I don't think it's any mystery why most Americans have a "knee jerk" reaction when it comes to hearing that their taxes are going to go up.

Well hey, in that case if Obama is elected it's a good thing the vast majority of people's taxes will be going down.

 

[DZoolander]

Government itself is socialism. It is forced with violence, funded with extortion onto for the purpose of satisfying someones opinion regarding "what is best".

I was actually excluding your view. lol

Not that I dislike it - but I think you understand why I wasn't address you in specific for that.

 

[joebudda]

Yes, those dates are from history and therefore it is.....a historical way of life.

To be fair, with that logic we can also say that genocide has occurred during 'this time' and 'that time' which would also make genocide a "historical way of life".

 

[Jadis40]

Yes, those dates are from history and therefore it is.....a historical way of life. Well hey, in that case if Obama is elected it's a good thing the vast majority of people's taxes will be going down.

Actually, that's not entirely true. The Tax Policy Center ran the numbers, and came up with this interesting conclusion:

From here: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37519

When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year.

 

[NotreDame]

It's called standard taxation. Not only a historical America way of life, but something Jesus said to pay as well. Matthew 17:24-27

Well, where in this verse did Jesus endorse redistribution of the wealth? There is a vast difference between paying taxes and redistributing the wealth. Oldbetan and myself are focusing on the latter, so why exactly are you giving us verses analyzing the former?

 

[FightTheLeft]

The Eye of the Needle is a actual thing and some, but not all camels could get through it, therefore you communist rhetoric of saying all to hell with rich people is false.

Anyways, the Needles eye, was a small passage way that you could get a camel through kneeling with no baggage, it was a passage way into Jerusalem during the night.

Please bring up the story about the farmers in the workers, I love disproving that one. Its really fun =).

 

[Calminian]

Matthew 19:24
24Again I tell you, 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."

As we all know, McCain/Palin and their supporters have accused Obama of being a "socialist". Given the fact that the U.S. has a mixed economy with a number of socialist features in place for many decades, I think it would be more accurate to say that Obama is just MORE inclined toward socialist-type solutions than McCain. Personally, I do not think this is a bad thing, because in my own political philosophy, I am in fact a socialist; specifically, a Christian Socialist. This means that I believe that a society inspired by the precepts of Jesus Christ should be organized along lines that are currently labeled "socialist".

I came to this position after struggling with the above Bible quote for a long time, because it stumped me, just as it shocked Jesus' disciples when he said it. "Who then can be saved?!"

According to a socialist perspective, the wealth of a society is generated by the members of that society working as a whole, not by particular individuals. Of course, some people are more talented, smarter, harder-working than others. In a sense, they contribute more, and fairness would indicate that they should therefore earn more. However, even the highest-functioning human being does not actually CREATE wealth; since wealth can only be accumulated by the cooperation of all of the members of society working together in harmony, with the raw materials CREATED BY GOD. In reality, we human beings create nothing. We are stewards of what God has created. No person is so superior and above the average that he has actually EARNED great wealth through his own honest effort. In fact, all of the money that a person "makes" that is over and above his needs, has actually been stolen from others through exploiting the rules by which a particular society apportions it's wealth. Either that, or it was inherited from someone who stole it.

Also, since humanity is divided into a number of separate nations, the members of one society can all become richer by the expedient of stealing the resources of other societies. The spoils are then divided according to the rules by which that society apportions wealth, with a higher proportion naturally flowing into the coffers of those who are already rich.

And for me, this insight solves the mystery as to why Jesus said it is next to impossible for a rich man to gain entrance to the Kingdom Of Heaven. Since their wealth has ultimately been stolen from others, rich people are therefore all guilty of violating the 8th Commandment: "Thou Shall Not Steal".

Christian socialism is not the same as government compulsory socialism. In fact christian social requires freedom and is best fostered by capitalistic societies. Christian socialism is all about charity. Government compulsory socialism eliminates charity.

This is a very important point. God doesn't not want you to force others to give to the causes you have picked out. You are trying to force christian principles on others by supporting socialism which is a violation of new testament teaching.

 

[Sketcher]

It's called standard taxation. Not only a historical America way of life, but something Jesus said to pay as well. Matthew 17:24-27

Jesus said pay taxes if you owe taxes, He didn't say to create a welfare state.

 

[DZoolander]

Once again - apart from the healthcare initiatives - which parts strike you as "redistributive" - or a "welfare state"?

 

[Sketcher]

Once again - apart from the healthcare initiatives - which parts strike you as "redistributive" - or a "welfare state"?

His tax plan.
His refusal to privatize social security.
His new spending endeavors.

 

[DZoolander]

His tax plan.
His refusal to privatize social security.
His new spending endeavors.

Well, we've already gone over the tax plan. It's essentially putting taxes back to what they were prior to the "temporary" Bush tax cuts. Those rates were not considered "socialist" back during the days of Reagan/Bush (I)/Clinton. Why ought we to consider them "socialist" now?

Privatizing social security? Good luck with that one...lol...especially after the recent stock market issues. I doubt there's a one of them that would dare even suggest that right now (and for good reason).

Which spending endeavors, apart from Healthcare?

 

[Thomas49]

That seems to have gone unanswered, for some reason. I would have asked for NT verse in which Christ advocates for the Government to redistribute wealth.

This is a red herring. Since representational Democracy was virtually nonexistent in the 1st century we cannot expect to find statements from Jesus that apply directly to our system of government; or nuclear weapons, global warming, or the ethical use of the internet for that matter. It rests on us to apply Jesus' principles and example to our contemporary situation to the best of our ability. In different degrees, at all times and in all human societies to date, there has always been a correlation between the rich, and the rulers, because those who have the most money also tend to have the most political power. Our representational Democracy modifies this to a certain extent because many government officials have to run for election by popular vote. When Jesus told the rich man "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This was analogous to Jesus telling the government today to redistribute wealth, since the person he was talking to was, by virtue of his wealth, a representative of the ruling segment of society at that time.

Please note that I am not advocating a system in which "the government" solves all of our problems by dictating solutions from above. From a socialist perspective, the government is a function of society, not the other way 'round. And what is society but the aggregate of all of us who are presently here living on this earth.

 

[FTPolice]

The Eye of the Needle is a actual thing and some, but not all camels could get through it, therefore you communist rhetoric of saying all to hell with rich people is false.

Anyways, the Needles eye, was a small passage way that you could get a camel through kneeling with no baggage, it was a passage way into Jerusalem during the night.

Please bring up the story about the farmers in the workers, I love disproving that one. Its really fun =).

Here's a little secret: That's the equivalent of an urban legend. There is no proof whatsoever of an entrance to the city being named the eye of the needle.

 

[Thomas49]

The Eye of the Needle is a actual thing and some, but not all camels could get through it, therefore you communist rhetoric of saying all to hell with rich people is false.

Anyways, the Needles eye, was a small passage way that you could get a camel through kneeling with no baggage, it was a passage way into Jerusalem during the night.

Please bring up the story about the farmers in the workers, I love disproving that one. Its really fun =).

Since you don't seem to have noticed that I already addressed this issue, here it is again:

"The "eye of the needle" gate in Jerusalem was narrow because it was designed for pedestrians, not "vehicular traffic". A camel could perhaps just squeeze through if it were not carrying anything on it's back, but if it was loaded down with cargo it was an impossible feat. Hence, a man "burdened" with many possessions likewise can not fit through the narrow gate that leads to the Kingdom."

The "Communist rhetoric" is not mine. It is Jesus'.

 

[Sketcher]

In different degrees, at all times and in all human societies to date, there has always been a correlation between the rich, and the rulers, because those who have the most money also tend to have the most political power. Our representational Democracy modifies this to a certain extent because many government officials have to run for election by popular vote. When Jesus told the rich man "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This was analogous to Jesus telling the government today to redistribute wealth, since the person he was talking to was, by virtue of his wealth, a representative of the ruling segment of society at that time.

Uh . . . problems I have with this man-made interpretation:

Wealth redistribution is simply a scheme to keep the underclass dependent on the upperclass "rulers." Does Ted Kennedy have to go through the bureaucratic red tape to get what his family depends on? Does he have to pay 6.2% of ALL his income into Social Security, or whatever sliver of a percent his first $100,000 a year amounts to be?

The super-rich in Congress write the tax codes, including the liberal Democrats. Don't think they don't look out for themselves and their buddies. And this is a problem I have with the Democrats: They have all this Robin Hood rhetoric, but they punish upper-middle and lower-upper class Americans, those who work hard for what they have with the taxes (i.e. Joe the Plumber) while looking out for the super-rich who they say they are against - because they are super-rich, and their contributors are super-rich. They're going to provide more loopholes to take care of themselves and their buddies, while giving themselves something to run against year after year, as they always have.

Another problem I have with what you say:

Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, "Bring us some drinks!" - Amos 4:1​

This sounds like a good leftist line until you look at who Amos was talking to. These families were those of the magistrates, who had not only money as our CEOs do, but on top of that, the power to throw you in jail. Rich executives can't by themselves throw you in jail. A state that is powerful enough to redistribute wealth easily could, though. This passage would have applied more to a Red Party official than an American CEO.

 

[Sketcher]

Well, we've already gone over the tax plan. It's essentially putting taxes back to what they were prior to the "temporary" Bush tax cuts. Those rates were not considered "socialist" back during the days of Reagan/Bush (I)/Clinton. Why ought we to consider them "socialist" now?

They're not the same. That $250,000 a year line in the sand for businesses as well as people (as well as what amounts to a $150,000 marriage penalty) was not there before.

Privatizing social security? Good luck with that one...lol...especially after the recent stock market issues. I doubt there's a one of them that would dare even suggest that right now (and for good reason).

First of all, Social Security is on a crumbling foundation. The ratio of workers to retirees has dwindled from over 159.4:1 to 3.3:1, and that number is expected to go down even further in the coming years. Longer lifespans, more benefits, and abortion have all helped to pare down this ratio.

Second, Social Security tax has increased to meet the demands. However, with the Baby Boomers retiring, and the subsequent Baby Bust, this tax is going to have to skyrocket in order to cover everybody. And that's all the Democrats want to do, tax us out of the problem and push back the inevitable failure of the system a few more years. Some estimates have the tax tripling by the end of the 21st century, if the program even lasts that long. Social Security is running out of money fast, and in 15 years, you'll be reading about it in the papers. We'll need to cut a third of benefits, or dramatically raise the taxes to cover it. Either way, it's not gonna be pretty.

This leaves the only real solution left to be privatizing the system. The proposals are to allow a portion of the tax to be opted out of, and saved in an account of your choice. It could be stocks, but it doesn't have to be - there's bonds and other safe ways to invest your money. And you will likely get a higher return than you would if you stayed with the government method. Furthermore, this would get the program back to solvency. I am highly disappointed that the Republicans failed to privatize the system 3 years ago, and highly disappointed in the AARP's panic and their refusal to even look into the various proposals which would NOT CUT BENEFITS to current and future retirees.

Which spending endeavors, apart from Healthcare?

There's a lot in that $800 billion, and I haven't bothered to go through that in detail because I'm sure we don't need any of it. The way the government has been spending money over the last 8 years, we don't need to spend one additional penny. But I'm sure that health care is going to be a significant chunk - we spend more on Medicare and Medicaid put together right now than we do on the military (minus veteran's benefits).

 

[NotreDame]

Please note that I am not advocating a system in which "the government" solves all of our problems by dictating solutions from above. From a socialist perspective, the government is a function of society, not the other way 'round. And what is society but the aggregate of all of us who are presently here living on this earth.

This is a red herring. Since representational Democracy was virtually nonexistent in the 1st century we cannot expect to find statements from Jesus that apply directly to our system of government; or nuclear weapons, global warming, or the ethical use of the internet for that matter.

Emphasis mine.

I find this line of reasoning very unpersuasive. First, it is very plausible Jesus could have made statements applicable to our system of government by speaking in general or in absolutes. The idea of government was not a foreign concept to Jesus during his existence. Governments had been in existence for many hundreds of years, if not longer, when Jesus' feet touched the dirt in the Middle East. Government existed during Jesus' entire tenure on this earth. Governments existed at the time of Jesus and he never made any demands upon any of them, in whatever form existed, to codify his teachings. This is precisely the point Oldbetang and myself are making. Whether it is authoritarian, dictatorship, oligcarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, democracy, republican, or any form of government, Jesus never uttered, exlcaimed, or screamed any statement demanding any government in particular, all governments in the future, or governments in general should codify his teachings.

Your examples are non-parallel precisely because none existed but the concept and idea of government did exist at the time of Jesus, and the fact it was not our kind of government does not logically preclude Jesus from making a general or absolute statement about governments, which would include our kind of government.

The Roman government existed at the time of Jesus and during his years of ministry, Jesus never endeavored on a voyage to Rome, make an appearance in the forum, and in front of the curia advocate for the codification of his teachings. Despite government existing at the time of Jesus, he made no appeals to it for the purpose of codifying his teachings.

It rests on us to apply Jesus' principles and example to our contemporary situation to the best of our ability.

I am not adverse to such an idea but advocating the government codify the teachings of Christ, or any precept in the NT, is what I am presently rebuking.

When Jesus told the rich man "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This was analogous to Jesus telling the government today to redistribute wealth, since the person he was talking to was, by virtue of his wealth, a representative of the ruling segment of society at that time.

This is a stretch! How exactly you construe Jesus remark to a particular individual of what he needs to do to obtain eternal life as a comment to a broader audience of governments needing to redistribute wealth is nothing short of mysterious, or a bad magic trick. There is no analogy to be made here. Jesus is addressing and is only addressing an individual here, and what the individual must do to obtain eternal life, as opposed to addressing a more broad and diverse audience of governments. In addition, governments cannot obtain eternal life, and the point of the dialogue was one of how the rich man can obtain eternal life, so there is no analogy to be drawn here in the manner you seek to do so.

Please note that I am not advocating a system in which "the government" solves all of our problems by dictating solutions from above. From a socialist perspective, the government is a function of society, not the other way 'round. And what is society but the aggregate of all of us who are presently here living on this earth.

But isn't this precisely where your logic takes us? You are allowing Godly dictates to direct government action in regards to ameliorating economic injustice, and if not economic injustice per se then the unfortunate consequence of the economy not adequately providing for all members of society, then can this also not similarly be used in non-economic ways? It seems rather inconsistent to appeal to heaven for guidance in amelioarting the undesirable and unfortunate consequences of our economic system and then simultaneously repudiate any appeal to heaven for assistance in addressing non-economic societal ills.

 

[JustOneWay]

Jesus said pay taxes if you owe taxes, He didn't say to create a welfare state.

Interesting....

But if a welfare state is created, then Jesus would say pay the taxes you owe.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I'm going to go ahead and take exception with the statement lamenting the "death of rugged individualism and self-reliance". I absolutely hate these two facts of living in the Western world, because it lets people scapegoat victims of social injustice for not working hard enough or something equally appalling.

These views are totally anomic, and do nothing but divide community up into little family cells that are only interested in looking out for their clan. I find it laughable that anyone would claim to be a Christian or follower of Christ, and espouse views which are as destructive as these ones.

/rant

 

[joebudda]

I'm going to go ahead and take exception with the statement lamenting the "death of rugged individualism and self-reliance". I absolutely hate these two facts of living in the Western world, because it lets people scapegoat victims of social injustice for not working hard enough or something equally appalling.

These views are totally anomic, and do nothing but divide community up into little family cells that are only interested in looking out for their clan. I find it laughable that anyone would claim to be a Christian or follower of Christ, and espouse views which are as destructive as these ones.

/rant

It is about freedom.
Would you rather force people to support the "greater good" as you see it. Or should "individuals" be free to support the "greater good" as they see it for themselves?