Socialism - An Evil Concept

[clirus]

I have. It's called increasing the tax rates for the top quintiles so that the people on the bottom who are often working much harder than the bums on top (who everyone doesn't call bums because they hold together our market -- and destroy it), so that the output equals the input and rich people are no longer stealing from the poor.

Remember, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The assumption with this fallacy is that the rich people steal from the poor. That may be true for some cases, but not true in most cases.

People will always be poor if they cling to excuses for their poverty and there are people who encourage others to cling to excuses for their poverty.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

This verse says the rich are in danger because they could "deny thee", and says the poor are in danger because they could "steal".

Seems just opposite of what you say.

Taxes are nothing more than a legal form of stealing when the purpose of the tax is to produce wealth redistribution.

 

[Willtor]

The assumption with this fallacy is that the rich people steal from the poor. That may be true for some cases, but not true in most cases.

People will always be poor if they cling to excuses for their poverty and there are people who encourage others to cling to excuses for their poverty.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

This verse says the rich are in danger because they could "deny thee", and says the poor are in danger because they could "steal".

Seems just opposite of what you say.

Taxes are nothing more than a legal form of stealing when the purpose of the tax is to produce wealth redistribution.

A lot of people don't have a choice. A lot of jobs that people take don't remove them from poverty. Many of them work way more hours in a week than you do, but they still don't have access to health care.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A lot of people don't have a choice. A lot of jobs that people take don't remove them from poverty. Many of them work way more hours in a week than you do, but they still don't have access to health care.

Clirus appears to be labouring under the delusion that if people work, and live as she prescribes, they simply get rich. That doesn't necessarily follow. She fails to consider that in some parts of the world labour is not as richly rewarded as it is in most parts of the West. And when labour is poorly rewarded there is little money left to accumulate after all regular finances are paid. Saving is difficult when labour is rewarded poorly. And then what of unexpected and irregular finances? How is a poor-paying job, in which a person just barely manages to cope, supposed to provide enough money to pay for necessary but unexpected purchases, such as fixing up one's home when a storm destroys it?

Oh, but Clirus says Christians will come to the rescue! That is, Christians will come and help if and only if the person converts and accepts 'the commandments/doctrines of Clirusism ... I mean, Christianity'. One only wonders if an Atheist were burning in a house fire, and Clirus was standing outside and she were the only one that could help, what she would do. Would she yell out to the Atheist and say, 'Convert to Christianity or I cannot extend charity to you'? In the Gospel, Christ never authorises the use of conversion ultimatums such as these. Indeed, I would argue that the very presence of an ultimatum no longer makes it an act of charity/mercy at all! In acts of charity you give without expecting anything in return. In acts such as these, you give but get a convert in return. In other words, you get a reward for your giving, and it's therefore not charity any longer. It is in fact an act of trade.

 

[nolongerhome]

Guys, there is no point reasoning with clirus. The billions of poor in the world who have no opportunity to be anything other than poor, who are born into families that have been poor for however long anyone can remember, who in the interests of the global economy need to continue to be poor as they keep the cogs and gears of the system lubricated, those that struggle to live on minisicule amounts of money that is barely enough, if indeed it is enough, to scrape a subsistence level of food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their family...

These people are evil and they are poor because of pornography and drugs. It is all their fault. How can you not see it?

 

[Received]

Taxes are nothing more than a legal form of stealing when the purpose of the tax is to produce wealth redistribution.

That's to be shown. My contention is that taxes are a way of leveling out the output closer (but by no means equal) to an equal input. For the billionth time, the gap between the top and bottom twenty percent is seventyfive fold, which is largely a part of the Reagan cuts starting in the 80's, but also our bipartisan charm with neoliberalism. The only way anyone could justify this gap without calling it a form of improperly getting what what top twenty percent don't deserve is to say that the top twenty percent are working seventyfive times harder than the bottom twenty percent. But you can't say that without being on drugs, being dishonest, or being evil. Or all three.

Bring up the progressive tax rate. Up, up, up. Down, down, down with the arrogant super-rich, who believe that they're helping the rest of society by having their taxes cut.

Here's another verse:

"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." -- Mark 10:25 (NASB)

God doesn't seem to have high hopes for rich people. The situation becomes even more sad when you realize that the poor constitute a cohort that gives more percentage wise than the rich. Yeah, so much for the contention that the rich really give more of what they have.

 

[clirus]

That's to be shown. My contention is that taxes are a way of leveling out the output closer (but by no means equal) to an equal input. For the billionth time, the gap between the top and bottom twenty percent is seventyfive fold, which is largely a part of the Reagan cuts starting in the 80's, but also our bipartisan charm with neoliberalism. The only way anyone could justify this gap without calling it a form of improperly getting what what top twenty percent don't deserve is to say that the top twenty percent are working seventyfive times harder than the bottom twenty percent. But you can't say that without being on drugs, being dishonest, or being evil. Or all three.

Bring up the progressive tax rate. Up, up, up. Down, down, down with the arrogant super-rich, who believe that they're helping the rest of society by having their taxes cut.

Here's another verse:

"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." -- Mark 10:25 (NASB)

God doesn't seem to have high hopes for rich people. The situation becomes even more sad when you realize that the poor constitute a cohort that gives more percentage wise than the rich. Yeah, so much for the contention that the rich really give more of what they have.

God doesn't have high hopes for the rich nor the poor because the rich tend to deny God, and the poor tend to steal.

I believe it is more pride than money that makes it difficult for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

I repeat:

There certainly are those that became rich by taking advantage of the weaknesses of the poor by selling pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. to the poor, but I believe most people live comfortably by hard work, following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible and God's blessings.

There certainly are those that are poor because they have physical and mental limitations, but I believe most people that are poor, got to be poor because of their weakness for pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

The concept of redistribution of wealth becomes just stealing unless there is a justification that everyone (including the rich) deserve to be robbed and the poor deserve to be given to.

Lots of people like the concept of Robin Hood who robbed from the evil rich and gave to the virtuous poor, but I worry that a lot was robbed and only a little ever got to the poor. I worry that the wealth redistribution (Socialism) of the Democrats really means robbing from the rich, stuffing their pockets, then if there is anything left, they give to the poor.

Giving to the poor is evil, if the money is used by the poor to continue to buy pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

I believe Socialism is a perversion by Satan of the Christian Concept of Charity.

 

[clirus]

Guys, there is no point reasoning with clirus. The billions of poor in the world who have no opportunity to be anything other than poor, who are born into families that have been poor for however long anyone can remember, who in the interests of the global economy need to continue to be poor as they keep the cogs and gears of the system lubricated, those that struggle to live on minisicule amounts of money that is barely enough, if indeed it is enough, to scrape a subsistence level of food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their family...

These people are evil and they are poor because of pornography and drugs. It is all their fault. How can you not see it?

That is the bad news.

The good news is that God will forgive all sins when a person accepts Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commits to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

The commandments/doctrines of the Bible establish the Christian Lifestyle that is the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyle that can exist on earth.

God even provides the Holy Spirit to help the Christian follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Yet, people refuse.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I repeat:

There certainly are those that are poor because they have physical and mental limitations, but I believe most people that are poor, got to be poor because of their weakness for pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc..

And I repeat, yet again:

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence for that claim.

Without proof, there is no compelling reason for us to accept your claim just because you believe it to be so.

It's audacious enough when you suggest that most people who are poor throughout the world are poor by their own fault, and not due to the poor conditions they must face daily, but it is totally insulting when you make such an extraordinary claim without the extraordinary evidence to back it up.

There certainly are those that became rich by taking advantage of the weaknesses of the poor by selling pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. to the poor, but I believe most people live comfortably by hard work, following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible and God's blessings.

Here you reveal yourself. You believe that most rich people are rich by their virtue, but that most poor people are poor because of their lack of virtue. Jesus didn't reward virtue with material wealth while here on Earth. Take note of that.

 

[clirus]

A lot of people don't have a choice. A lot of jobs that people take don't remove them from poverty. Many of them work way more hours in a week than you do, but they still don't have access to health care.

Having health care is not going to solve most of the problems of the poor nor to cure poverty.

Too many of the health care/welfare costs are associated with bad lifestyles that a doctor cannot change. The only way to change the lifestyle is to "Just say No".

Let me give some examples:

Smoking is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care cost, but warning labels, taxes, etc. have not changed peoples decision to stop smoking. Health Insurance will not change smoking lifestyles.

Obesity is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care cost.

Alcohol is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care cost.

Adultery is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care/welfare cost. An illegitimate child is instant poverty where the government will pay for the illegitimate child forever.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care/welfare cost.

I believe the solution for bad lifestyle decisions is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. Beyond that there seems to be no solution that works. Alcoholics Anonymous is somewhat successful, but that is based on religious principles also.

The democrats need to scrap the Increased Coverage concept for 30 million irresponsible Americans and start over with the Cost Reduction concept for the 170 million responsible Americans.

 

[Willtor]

Having health care is not going to solve most of the problems of the poor nor to cure poverty.

Too many of the health care/welfare costs are associated with bad lifestyles that a doctor cannot change. The only way to change the lifestyle is to "Just say No".

Let me give some examples:

Smoking is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care cost, but warning labels, taxes, etc. have not changed peoples decision to stop smoking. Health Insurance will not change smoking lifestyles.

Obesity is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care cost.

Alcohol is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care cost.

Adultery is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care/welfare cost. An illegitimate child is instant poverty where the government will pay for the illegitimate child forever.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle decision that is an enormous health care/welfare cost.

I believe the solution for bad lifestyle decisions is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. Beyond that there seems to be no solution that works. Alcoholics Anonymous is somewhat successful, but that is based on religious principles also.

The democrats need to scrap the Increased Coverage concept for 30 million irresponsible Americans and start over with the Cost Reduction concept for the 170 million responsible Americans.

I'm talking about Americans who don't earn enough in wages to pay for healthcare. They're the "working poor." It isn't a question of cigarettes or alcohol -- if you add healthcare into their budgets there is a deficit, no matter how responsible they are and no matter how few frills on which they spend.

 

[YoDude]

A capitalist economy will invariably consist of ultra rich and ultra poor, with hopefully a solid middle class. The rich will have so much they can afford to give some back; the middle class should be able to afford a house, car, and kids if they break their backs for corporate america, and the poor children should be given equal opportunity to compete with their peers (public school) and move up in economic class as adults if they work hard and study.

There will always be a strata in economic class: some will be born rich, some will get rich, some will work hard to be middle class, some will work hard and still be poor, and some will move up, and live the American dream. The question is not 'how can we move young people up in class', but rather 'what will be the motivation to work hard if you cannot move up or lazier individuals get same pay and lifestyle and don't work hard', No, the lazy ones will be cast out of the corporations, there are others willing to work hard, so move out of the way, or get to work. Hard work is the foundation of America, not hand outs, if you are poor, do something about it. I am from middle America, but I have no desire for nepotism, favoritism, racial advantages, nationality-isms, etc. Look, I am here busting my ..... for my home, family, and country; go to school, work hard, come to my company, work hard, get along with others, and you can have my job once I am done with it, or am too old or incompetent to keep doing it. I will still find a way to feed myself, because I freakin WORK to put food in my mouth, not because my daddy was middle class - where was my daddy the first 2 years out on my own? I was working in oil change garages, flipping burgers, scrubbing floors, all for like $5 an hour, running on foot to get to work on time, in dark blue polyester, on a hot Texas morning. Don't give me that disenfranchised BS, get up and work, give the lazy their $100 a week so they can meet their minimum sustainance living; if you gave some people $1000 a week and free college, and free in house tutors, and free massage therapists, and free automobiles..... many would still be lazy, sitting at home, contributing nothing, just sucking fumes off a productive and proud american workforce. Stop crying and start working, show me a hard working (non-addict) man whose kids aren't fed, and whom the hospital turns away.... yeah, right, it doesn't exist.

 

[Received]

God doesn't have high hopes for the rich nor the poor because the rich tend to deny God, and the poor tend to steal.

I believe it is more pride than money that makes it difficult for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

Question begging. You assume stealing is defined by your own parameters. Once again, you're to show how stealing inexorably relates to the output alone rather than (as I hold) a significant imbalance between input and output. You can quote whichever scriptures you like that use the word "stealing", but so long as you don't prove that your own definition of stealing is absolute, there's no reason why I should hold to it (and therefore that your position holds no water), especially since I've actually made an argument as to the formulaic nature involved with what a person earns and what therefore constitutes stealing.

*In other words*, if I work sixty hours at Wal-Mart on my feet while you work forty at a desk, and I make $20k a year and you make $2m (million) a year, you're still yet to prove how on earth this massive income gap isn't a type of stealing given that the first person is putting in much more actual work than the other. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that a person should be rewarded according to his work, and not the arbitrary result bestowed by a free market. Yeah, that's right, according to this definition you're (not you specifically -- the indefinite you) stealing, live in a society of stealers, and are so insulated with the idea that you can't see the very basic warning Jesus had for the rich:

"But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full" (Luke 6:24, NASB).

 

[ArnautDaniel]

A capitalist economy will invariably consist of ultra rich and ultra poor, with hopefully a solid middle class. The rich will have so much they can afford to give some back; the middle class should be able to afford a house, car, and kids if they break their backs for corporate america, and the poor children should be given equal opportunity to compete with their peers (public school) and move up in economic class as adults if they work hard and study.

There will always be a strata in economic class: some will be born rich, some will get rich, some will work hard to be middle class, some will work hard and still be poor, and some will move up, and live the American dream. The question is not 'how can we move young people up in class', but rather 'what will be the motivation to work hard if you cannot move up or lazier individuals get same pay and lifestyle and don't work hard', No, the lazy ones will be cast out of the corporations, there are others willing to work hard, so move out of the way, or get to work. Hard work is the foundation of America, not hand outs, if you are poor, do something about it. I am from middle America, but I have no desire for nepotism, favoritism, racial advantages, nationality-isms, etc. Look, I am here busting my ..... for my home, family, and country; go to school, work hard, come to my company, work hard, get along with others, and you can have my job once I am done with it, or am too old or incompetent to keep doing it. I will still find a way to feed myself, because I freakin WORK to put food in my mouth, not because my daddy was middle class - where was my daddy the first 2 years out on my own? I was working in oil change garages, flipping burgers, scrubbing floors, all for like $5 an hour, running on foot to get to work on time, in dark blue polyester, on a hot Texas morning. Don't give me that disenfranchised BS, get up and work, give the lazy their $100 a week so they can meet their minimum sustainance living; if you gave some people $1000 a week and free college, and free in house tutors, and free massage therapists, and free automobiles..... many would still be lazy, sitting at home, contributing nothing, just sucking fumes off a productive and proud american workforce. Stop crying and start working, show me a hard working (non-addict) man whose kids aren't fed, and whom the hospital turns away.... yeah, right, it doesn't exist.

Generally the ultra-rich and their middle class go-fers will give only enough back to the poor to avert a revolution.

Eventually they forget the revolutions actually do happen and are still capable of happening and the wake up morning in shock to find hordes of serfs with pitchforks and torches at their front doors.

 

[clirus]

Question begging. You assume stealing is defined by your own parameters. Once again, you're to show how stealing inexorably relates to the output alone rather than (as I hold) a significant imbalance between input and output. You can quote whichever scriptures you like that use the word "stealing", but so long as you don't prove that your own definition of stealing is absolute, there's no reason why I should hold to it (and therefore that your position holds no water), especially since I've actually made an argument as to the formulaic nature involved with what a person earns and what therefore constitutes stealing.

*In other words*, if I work sixty hours at Wal-Mart on my feet while you work forty at a desk, and I make $20k a year and you make $2m (million) a year, you're still yet to prove how on earth this massive income gap isn't a type of stealing given that the first person is putting in much more actual work than the other. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that a person should be rewarded according to his work, and not the arbitrary result bestowed by a free market. Yeah, that's right, according to this definition you're (not you specifically -- the indefinite you) stealing, live in a society of stealers, and are so insulated with the idea that you can't see the very basic warning Jesus had for the rich:

"But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full" (Luke 6:24, NASB).

By the physical law of supply and demand, almost anyone can work sixty hours at Wal-Mart on their feet and make $20K, but there are not a lot of people that can be engineers and sit at a desk and earn $2m (exerted a little bit didn't you).

The reality is that the only people that get to sit at a desk to do their work are people that have advanced degrees or a special talent (except for political appointments).

The reality is that people do not get physically rewarded for their work, but rather for their talent.

That is why football players get paid more than teachers. I personally think teachers are more valuable than football players, but other people must think different, because they would rather pay $100 for a football game ticket than give $100 to the PTA.

God deals with the spiritual situation, and I believe God would consider a righteous Wal-Mart employee to be just as good as a righteous desk job.

Physical success is when opportunity and preparation come together.

Preparation requires a lot of physical restraint to avoid evil and to work hard to develop the talent God has blessed a person with. In many cases people allow the Atheistic Lifestyle evils/weaknesses to prevent them from ever becoming prepared for the desk job.

Many an intelligent young man has never achieved what they could have been, because they could not resist wine, women and song.

In the sum of it all, I believe God created the Law of Supply and Demand to promote good and rebuke evil.

 

[clirus]

Generally the ultra-rich and their middle class go-fers will give only enough back to the poor to avert a revolution.

Eventually they forget the revolutions actually do happen and are still capable of happening and the wake up morning in shock to find hordes of serfs with pitchforks and torches at their front doors.

That sounds more like blackmail than justice. What good does violence produce?

An attitude of violence produces the attitudes like George Bernard Shaw and the Progressives that I stated in the thread, "Bad Solutions to poverty".

Bad Solutions to Poverty

I have advocated Socialism is a bad solution to poverty, because it tends to stockpile poverty such that when there is a major earth quake, drought, hurricane, etc. there is a major problem that is beyond solution.

Poor people tend to be located in dangerous areas because most people evaluate where they locate and will not build in the dangerous areas. Some will say the rich steal the good land from the poor, but that is another ongoing discussion.

I always thought Socialism was the worst thing you could do for poverty, but while watching the Glen Beck show on Fox I heard of something that shocked me and that was the Eugenics Education Society. The following was George Bernard Shaw"s comments:

George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Support for eugenics

Shaw was a proponent of eugenics.[66] [67] He gave a talk in which he advocated bringing people before a board every 5 years to justify their existence."I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioners. And say every 5 years or every 7 years. Just put them there and say, sir, or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existance." (the Revolutionary Holocaust, Glenn Beck, Jan.22, 2010)[citation needed] He reasoned that those who were not productive were of no value to society nor to themselves, stating:

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself." [68]

He wrote that "the only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man".[69] Personal incomes were to be made equal, thus allowing the selection of partners "without consideration of rank or wealth".[70] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he warned of the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" Some have argued that it was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams.[71][72]

I believe the extremes of dealing with poverty seem to be Socialism and Eugenics.

This just reinforces my position that the Christian Religion represents the middle ground on the issue of dealing with the poor

I believe the Christian Policy of dealing with the poor is to offer them the concept of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible as being the Christian Lifestyle which provides the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyle that can exist on earth.

If they accept salvation, they are a member of the Christian Brotherhood and receive personal Christian Charity as a part of a local church. If they refuse, they are on their own, with there being no Socialistic government health care/welfare.

If individual Christians desire to help Atheists that is their choice of how to spend their resources, but in no case should a person be forced to pay through taxes or other government fees.

Poverty is a very serious problem, and there needs to be a decision on how to best deal with poverty. I believe the Christian Policy is best.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By the physical law of supply and demand, almost anyone can work sixty hours at Wal-Mart on their feet and make $20K, but there are not a lot of people that can be engineers and sit at a desk and earn $2m (exerted a little bit didn't you).

But there aren't Wal-Marts everywhere around the world where people can come in, work, and get paid what you would get paid in the US.

Physical success is when opportunity and preparation come together.

And yet you do not support the creation of such opportunities for those who need them most.

Many an intelligent young man has never achieved what they could have been, because they could not resist wine, women and song.

Once in a while I go out for a drink. I let my cautious guard down, relax, and enjoy some beer or other beverages. I also enjoy music, particularly hard rock and metal. And I have a girlfriend. And I deem that the presence of all these things, in wise moderation, has more of a beneficial effect then it does harm. For all of these factors allow me to relax a little, and for a quiet moment, escape the labours of the day. It makes daily living much more manageable to cope with.

In the sum of it all, I believe God created the Law of Supply and Demand to promote good and rebuke evil.

Justify this please.

Supply and demand can work for things that you claim God rebukes too, such as pornography. Supply/demand does not account for moral quality of what is being supplied/demanded. Consequently, it does not necessarily promote good and rebuke evil, contrary to your claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have advocated Socialism is a bad solution to poverty, because it tends to stockpile poverty such that when there is a major earth quake, drought, hurricane, etc. there is a major problem that is beyond solution.

How does Socialism do that? Speculation. Justify it.

I believe the Christian Policy of dealing with the poor is to offer them the concept of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible as being the Christian Lifestyle which provides the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyle that can exist on earth.

And when they accept Christ, and are still materially poor, what then Clirus? What then?

As I've said before I will say again: conversion alone will not necessarily reverse poverty, if the conditions underlying that poverty - namely a lack of resources and opportunities in one's proximity, a lack of access to services. Etc - continue to persist.

If getting rid of poverty was as easy as Clirus portrays it to be (simply convert and it will go away) then poverty would be gone within a generation! It's as simple as Clirus makes it out to be.

If they accept salvation, they are a member of the Christian Brotherhood and receive personal Christian Charity as a part of a local church. If they refuse, they are on their own, with there being no Socialistic government health care/welfare.

No. They're not on their own, because regardless of whether they convert to Christianity or not, they are still our neighbours. And we are still commanded by God to love our neighbours as we would love ourselves. The parable of the Good Samaritan makes this very plain.

If individual Christians desire to help Atheists that is their choice of how to spend their resources, but in no case should a person be forced to pay through taxes or other government fees.

If an Atheist was in a burning house, and you alone could save him, what would you do?

Poverty is a very serious problem, and there needs to be a decision on how to best deal with poverty. I believe the Christian Policy is best.

Except that you have yet to put forward a Christian Policy. All you've done is present your own policy, one that has been shown to be antithetical to the parable discussed earlier, and therefore, not Christian policy at all.

 

[clirus]

A capitalist economy will invariably consist of ultra rich and ultra poor, with hopefully a solid middle class. The rich will have so much they can afford to give some back; the middle class should be able to afford a house, car, and kids if they break their backs for corporate america, and the poor children should be given equal opportunity to compete with their peers (public school) and move up in economic class as adults if they work hard and study.

There will always be a strata in economic class: some will be born rich, some will get rich, some will work hard to be middle class, some will work hard and still be poor, and some will move up, and live the American dream. The question is not 'how can we move young people up in class', but rather 'what will be the motivation to work hard if you cannot move up or lazier individuals get same pay and lifestyle and don't work hard', No, the lazy ones will be cast out of the corporations, there are others willing to work hard, so move out of the way, or get to work. Hard work is the foundation of America, not hand outs, if you are poor, do something about it. I am from middle America, but I have no desire for nepotism, favoritism, racial advantages, nationality-isms, etc. Look, I am here busting my ..... for my home, family, and country; go to school, work hard, come to my company, work hard, get along with others, and you can have my job once I am done with it, or am too old or incompetent to keep doing it. I will still find a way to feed myself, because I freakin WORK to put food in my mouth, not because my daddy was middle class - where was my daddy the first 2 years out on my own? I was working in oil change garages, flipping burgers, scrubbing floors, all for like $5 an hour, running on foot to get to work on time, in dark blue polyester, on a hot Texas morning. Don't give me that disenfranchised BS, get up and work, give the lazy their $100 a week so they can meet their minimum sustainance living; if you gave some people $1000 a week and free college, and free in house tutors, and free massage therapists, and free automobiles..... many would still be lazy, sitting at home, contributing nothing, just sucking fumes off a productive and proud american workforce. Stop crying and start working, show me a hard working (non-addict) man whose kids aren't fed, and whom the hospital turns away.... yeah, right, it doesn't exist.

I believe the Bible advocates a large middle class and a very small rich and a very small poor by advocating that the rich not deny God and the poor not steal.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

I believe Socialism creates and sustains a large number of poor by coddling the poor, which prevents the poor from examining their lives and removing the sin that is causing their poverty.

Matthew 6:29 states, And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

If each person would examine themselves relative to the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, there would be little need for a Judiciary System, but some will never follow God's Law nor Civil Law so there is no option than to execute them after a jury trial in accordance with both Civil Law. This is the concept of removing the rotten apple from the barrel before the whole barrel is destroyed.

There will always be the evil rich and the evil poor because of the sin nature of man, but there should be constant struggle against sin in the rich, middle class and the poor.

The Church should rebuke sin/evil in reverence to God, and the State should rebuke evil/sin for health safety and economic reasons.

 

[Received]

The reality is that people do not get physically rewarded for their work, but rather for their talent.

Right, and I'm even willing to accept this (provided that some incomes change more towards equality -- I'm not a socialist), but tell me where in scripture it says "a man shall be rewarded according to his talent."

The goal of change is to take less emphasis on talent and more emphasis on actual work. People do work hard for college degrees, and so they naturally deserve at least one or two times as much than others -- not seventyfive times as much, or anything that close to a shade of injustice.

 

[clirus]

Right, and I'm even willing to accept this (provided that some incomes change more towards equality -- I'm not a socialist), but tell me where in scripture it says "a man shall be rewarded according to his talent."

The goal of change is to take less emphasis on talent and more emphasis on actual work. People do work hard for college degrees, and so they naturally deserve at least one or two times as much than others -- not seventyfive times as much, or anything that close to a shade of injustice.

You sure sound like a socialist to me.

I think you exaggerate the difference in salary of people working as engineers and those getting minimum wage. Last I saw, engineers get about 100K per year and minimum wage gets 16K. That is a factor of 6 not a factor of 75.

A lot of the factor of 75 jobs are due to unions, politics, good old buddy, etc. I like to think of America as the place where Supply and Demand works and competition establishes the cost of things and the salaries that are paid. That is why I oppose unions, political jobs, and good old buddy clicks.

Also, the engineer has to live a healthy lifestyle to survive. Minimum wage jobs don't have many requirements at all.

If it was really easy to run a company, everyone would run a company. A lot of people try to start a business but few succeed. A lot more people use to try to start a business in America before the government began to regulate and tax the businesses.