Socialism...

[ThatRobGuy]

This is a question for republicans who vote (R) because of their religious faith...

Why do you guys uphold the bible on certain issues like gay marriage and abortion, but in the same breath, say that Obama is promoting socialism and that socialism is wrong?

In your minds, why is the book of Romans worth upholding for it's stance on gays, but the book of Acts' position on Communalism/Socialism not valued or taken literally?

Don't you feel that's selective faith?...either the book has all of the answers and is perfect...or it's a faulty book and therefore can't be trusted 100% on all issues...

Your thoughts?

 

[theVirginian]

The socialism in Acts was completely voluntary. When the government dictates that we contribute to their form of charity, it's slavery. The taxpayer has to ante up or go to prison. The poor has to vote for whoever will keep their entitlements going even if they disagree with that party's platform.

The reason the Church got into trouble in the Middle Ages was because they assumed the role of government when the Roman Empire collapsed. They were out of their niche. The same is true when the government takes over charitable giving and I always wonder if the politicians give a toot about the poor or if they are seen only as a captive voter block.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The socialism in Acts was completely voluntary. When the government dictates that we contribute to their form of charity, it's slavery. The taxpayer has to ante up or go to prison. The poor has to vote for whoever will keep their entitlements going even if they disagree with that party's platform.

The reason the Church got into trouble in the Middle Ages was because they assumed the role of government when the Roman Empire collapsed. They were out of their niche. The same is true when the government takes over charitable giving and I always wonder if the politicians give a toot about the poor or if they are seen only as a captive voter block.

So you're saying that socialism works as long as it's voluntary???

I guess my next question would be this...If socialistic ideals are truly what an economy needs to get back on its feet and level out, but nobody wants to voluntarily step up, what should the government do?

I think it's clear now that a capitalism last slightly over 200 years before the greed and selfishness that create it cause it to collapse on itself...

Do you have any other ideas on how it should be implemented? I hear people say that capitalism will fix itself, but I don't see how that's possible with a system that's very core is based on stepping on other people to get ahead.

 

[theVirginian]

So you're saying that socialism works as long as it's voluntary???

I was only talking about the government running a charity. The answer is no. As I said in my first post, the government is out of it's area of expertise.

I guess my next question would be this...If socialistic ideals are truly what an economy needs to get back on its feet and level out, but nobody wants to voluntarily step up, what should the government do?

Make a better case for their version of socialism. Good luck convincing me. I remember the quality control of motor vehicles made in the 1960s UK. Their products were better than American technology wise, but reliabilty was a joke.

I think it's clear now that a capitalism last slightly over 200 years before the greed and selfishness that create it cause it to collapse on itself...

Do you have any other ideas on how it should be implemented? I hear people say that capitalism will fix itself, but I don't see how that's possible with a system that's very core is based on stepping on other people to get ahead.

The only difference between capitalism and socialism as an economy is that with socialism, the government owns the businesses. The private citizen is then beholding to the government for their job. This is too close to fascism for my liking.

Just because some men have misused capitalism doesn't mean its a bad choice for an economy. Its just vulnerable.

 

[b&wpac4]

The only difference between capitalism and socialism as an economy is that with socialism, the government owns the businesses. The private citizen is then beholding to the government for their job. This is too close to fascism for my liking.

Fascism is the running of government by business. Neither socialism or fascism is a good idea. Our challenge is to find that middle ground to walk.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think the "socialism" in Acts is a completely different type of socialism than what we see these days.

 

[Kharak]

Capitalism is run on greed, it's just that the Free Market economies of Adam Smith's ideal are the benefit of enforcement against conspiracy to limit trade. Perfect Competition is simply another word for status quo.

It's when large firms upset the equilibrium that we all have to fear something. There is a very good reason Wat Tyler's Peasant Rebellion targeted guild members first: They were tired of incessantly high prices and inability to afford their products.

 

[Verv]

This is a question for republicans who vote (R) because of their religious faith...

Why do you guys uphold the bible on certain issues like gay marriage and abortion, but in the same breath, say that Obama is promoting socialism and that socialism is wrong?

In your minds, why is the book of Romans worth upholding for it's stance on gays, but the book of Acts' position on Communalism/Socialism not valued or taken literally?

Don't you feel that's selective faith?...either the book has all of the answers and is perfect...or it's a faulty book and therefore can't be trusted 100% on all issues...

Your thoughts?

Many people are conservatives in addition to their Christianity.

One is a religious view. the other one is a political view.

However, if you were to make it into a religious argument you could look to John Locke who made the argument that the right to property is inalienable as the Bible says it is such with thou shalt not steal. And what would a government be doing if they were overtaxing or re-distributing wealth?

I really dislike everything about Pres. Obama and all of this is a purely ideological clash that we have -- I believe in an entirely different set of philosophies. Yet we are both apparently Christians.

How do you feel about that?

I believe in separation of Church & State. Do you?

 

[QuakerOats]

And what would a government be doing if they were overtaxing or re-distributing wealth?

I'm not saying that I agree with over-taxation, but think about the alternative for a moment. A great many folks would be left to rely on the generosity of their neighbours, and consider me a cynic all you like, but I just don't have a whole lot of faith in that. I could be wrong of course, but greed tends to be a popular human trait.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Many people are conservatives in addition to their Christianity.

One is a religious view. the other one is a political view.

However, if you were to make it into a religious argument you could look to John Locke who made the argument that the right to property is inalienable as the Bible says it is such with thou shalt not steal. And what would a government be doing if they were overtaxing or re-distributing wealth?

I really dislike everything about Pres. Obama and all of this is a purely ideological clash that we have -- I believe in an entirely different set of philosophies. Yet we are both apparently Christians.

How do you feel about that?

I believe in separation of Church & State. Do you?

I'm 100% for the separation of church and state.

Being that I don't buy in to any religious system, I naturally feel that the government shouldn't endorse any particular one over the other (which republicans have consistently done for the last 50 years).

If you read my OP, you'll notice that my post was questioning why many Christian republicans feel that the book of Romans is worth integrating into their political opinions, but Acts is not. I'm not a Christian and don't feel that political opinions should be derived from either book, I'm just curious as to why people pick and choose which biblical standpoints they're going to carry through to other parts of their lives...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The socialism in Acts was completely voluntary.

...isn't choosing the the christian lifestyle supposed to be voluntary as well??? How can you consider federal mandated socialistic ideals completely terrible, but completely support the government enforcing biblical views on gay marriage?

 

[allhart]

This is a question for republicans who vote (R) because of their religious faith...

Why do you guys uphold the bible on certain issues like gay marriage and abortion, but in the same breath, say that Obama is promoting socialism and that socialism is wrong?

In your minds, why is the book of Romans worth upholding for it's stance on gays, but the book of Acts' position on Communalism/Socialism not valued or taken literally?

Don't you feel that's selective faith?...either the book has all of the answers and is perfect...or it's a faulty book and therefore can't be trusted 100% on all issues...

Your thoughts?

God isn't anything you think He is! He isn't Republican or a democrat,nor is he communist or a socialist,however, he is free to do as he see's fit. Also I don't think God is American or any other Nation claims to be.

I am a child of God. No matter the situation or issue FIRST. Integrity,truth,honest,principles,transparency still matter and I carry them towards my world view. No matter the party. Which by the way I feel are all heading together as progressives towards bigger Gov.

 

[theVirginian]

How can you consider federal mandated socialistic ideals completely terrible,...

...but completely support the government enforcing biblical views on gay marriage?

Both are consistant with a conservative Christian POV. As far as gay marriage goes, I don't see it as the government enforcing biblical views when its handled the way Virginia did it. The issue came up for a ballot vote to ammend the state constitution and it passed. The citizens spoke, not the government. FWIW, not everybody who voted for it did so for religious reasons.

 

[canukian]

This is a question for republicans who vote (R) because of their religious faith...

Why do you guys uphold the bible on certain issues like gay marriage and abortion, but in the same breath, say that Obama is promoting socialism and that socialism is wrong?

In your minds, why is the book of Romans worth upholding for it's stance on gays, but the book of Acts' position on Communalism/Socialism not valued or taken literally?

Don't you feel that's selective faith?...either the book has all of the answers and is perfect...or it's a faulty book and therefore can't be trusted 100% on all issues...

Your thoughts?

the socialism you speak is built on the truth and is fine if every person is there of his own free will.


obamas socialism is built on lies for the sake of power for its own sake, and forces people who do not want to participate to be there by force from the tyrany of the majotity. (who, dont forget have been lied to. there are inocent and guilty in the tent, the innocent being the sheep)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

the socialism you speak is built on the truth and is fine if every person is there of his own free will.


obamas socialism is built on lies for the sake of power for its own sake, and forces people who do not want to participate to be there by force from the tyrany of the majotity. (who, dont forget have been lied to. there are inocent and guilty in the tent, the innocent being the sheep)

I believe I mentioned this before...but what do you do when no one steps up (especially from the upper class)?

The way I look at it, the upper 10% earners in the country have been neglecting their tax responsibility to society as a whole and leaving the lower and middle class to shoulder the tax burden. With all of the tax loopholes created by our beloved "Capitalist" leaders (also wealthy, go figure) I get left paying $8500 a year on my 65K salary. My dad's friend works for a large tax firm here in the cleveland area and he said that he has clients who make upwards of 5-10 million a year and somehow only manage to have to pay $20k-$25k in taxes...maybe my math is off, but those ratios don't seem to be accurate.

I pay over 12%...they pay .5%?!?!...at that point, I'm completely for having the government step in and shift the tax dollars around.

If they actually paid the 12% like most of us, the government would have an extra $600k in revenue, and they'd still take home 4.4million...I don't see the problem.

 

[Tarpshack]

I pay over 12%...they pay .5%?!?!...at that point, I'm completely for having the government step in and shift the tax dollars around.

If they actually paid the 12% like most of us, the government would have an extra $600k in revenue, and they'd still take home 4.4million...I don't see the problem.

Sounds like you would be in favor of a simpler tax system, like a flat tax. Not socialism.

 

[Andreusz]

The socialism in Acts was completely voluntary.

Unless you were Ananias or Saphira.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sounds like you would be in favor of a simpler tax system, like a flat tax. Not socialism.

I will admit I was fan of the Steve Forbes tax plan...

Although in a case where the government and a large debt along with most of the lower and middle class, I'd be in favor of a 1-time shifting of assets, even if it was just for 2009, to help level things out. That's the only true way to stimulate the economy...helping rich people save more money isn't really going to accomplish anything because their spending habits are going to stay the same whether they have 5 million or 10 million...however, if you take a person who makes 30k and give them an extra 5k for the year, they will be able to buy more which in turn will make local business more profitable, which will then give the people working at those business more money to spend elsewhere, the cycle goes on...you guys get the idea.

 

[Tarpshack]

I will admit I was fan of the Steve Forbes tax plan...

Although in a case where the government and a large debt along with most of the lower and middle class, I'd be in favor of a 1-time shifting of assets, even if it was just for 2009, to help level things out. That's the only true way to stimulate the economy...helping rich people save more money isn't really going to accomplish anything because their spending habits are going to stay the same whether they have 5 million or 10 million...however, if you take a person who makes 30k and give them an extra 5k for the year, they will be able to buy more which in turn will make local business more profitable, which will then give the people working at those business more money to spend elsewhere, the cycle goes on...you guys get the idea.

That sounds like trickle down economics except from a lower launching point.

But it's not true that spending habits remain the same despite an increase in income. A good example of this is when they found in 2006 that Wall Street bonuses were expected to generate $1.6 billion in tax revenues for New York state and another $500 million for New York City. In addition, for every job created on Wall Street, three other jobs are created in the city and suburbs.

Wall Street bonuses flood NYC's economy

If you gave an extra 5k to someone making 30k, it would probably make it back into the economy. However, middle income people are workers, not typically job creators. I'm not saying they shouldn't get money back; they should too. I just don't agree with redistribution of wealth.

 

[Kharak]

That sounds like trickle down economics except from a lower launching point.

But it's not true that spending habits remain the same despite an increase in income. A good example of this is when they found in 2006 that Wall Street bonuses were expected to generate $1.6 billion in tax revenues for New York state and another $500 million for New York City. In addition, for every job created on Wall Street, three other jobs are created in the city and suburbs.

I am skeptical of trickle down economics.

Especially when we had an uber-wealthy noble class for centuries, and peasantry and yeoman could not benefit. Even with the creation of the Middle Class, Lower Class workers did not really benefit in the Industrial Revolution.