Why I'm a liberal socialist.

[GodLovesCats]

Rich people give a lot to the poor directly or through employment.

They want tax cuts. Why? They want to keep the money. What do Republican politicians do? Cut taxes on the rich people who can afford to pay them instead of the people living from paycheck to paycheck. I need to see rich people stop complaining about paying higher taxes than the middle class when they know that money goes to help poor people.

 

[Yekcidmij]

They want tax cuts.

Who is "they?" Are "rich people" some homogeneous group that all "wants" the same thing?

Why? They want to keep the money.

And I presume you want to take it from "them." Is this somehow less greedy?

 

[GodLovesCats]

"They" are millionaires and billionaires who vote for Republicans.

Jesus told people to not be greedy at all. When rich people want tax cuts and complain about paying high taxes, they are being greedy. That is obvious. I am not greedy because I am poor and need more money, but can't get it.

Now, let's look at what poor people need money for. I can only use myself as an example here so please do not think I am begging you or anyone else. The biggest one obviously is health care. If rich people, knowing their tax dollars will go to Medicare, complain about paying higher taxes, they are sending those who can't afford private health insurance the message, "I don't care if they suffer and die." That might be a gross exaggeration for some, but it is true millions of people die because they lack health insurance. So Jesus would want people to gladly pay taxes for Medicare for All, not complain they have better things for themselves to spend the money on. Remember Jesus gave people free health care, never telling anybody they have to work to get treated for leprosy.

 

[Albion]

In some ways,i can give those ancient socialists that their views had a bit of reason in them. Now it's all about being a victim.

Let's get one thing straight, folks. Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon. It had no real equivalent in ancient or medieval times and Jesus was certainly NOT a Socialist.

 

[Cis.jd]

Let's get one thing straight, folks. Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon. It had no real equivalent in ancient or medieval times and Jesus was certainly NOT a Socialist.

Historically speaking, you are right.
I think the person I responded to meant bits and pieces of the ideology.

 

[Albion]

Historically speaking, you are right.
I think the person I responded to meant bits and pieces of the ideology.

OK, it's not my intention to focus on any particular member here, especially since this notion of Jesus being a Socialist or just like a Socialist is an old, old line and completely false. It's the false claim that I was addressing.

And by the way, there isn't any 'bits and pieces" of Socialism to save since it is a package. If we were to select parts and discard parts it wouldn't be Socialism anymore than saying ''Christ was a Buddhist" would be reasonable (except, of course, for a few differences like Buddhism believes in no God and has no connection to the Bible.)

 

[Quartermaine]

Gun control in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

did you even read this?....because it doesn't support your claim

 

[Cis.jd]

OK, it's not my intention to focus on any particular member here, especially since this notion of Jesus being a Socialist or just like a Socialist is an old, old line and completely false. It's the false claim that I was addressing.

And by the way, there isn't any 'bits and pieces" of Socialism to save since it is a package. If we were to select parts and discard parts it wouldn't be Socialism anymore than ''Christ was a Buddhist" would be reasonable--except, of course, for a few differences like Buddhism believes in no God and has no connection to the Bible.

After re-reading a bit more, I think the person confused socialism to be a synonym for left

 

[Michie]

You don't get it. Jesus preached what liberals and socialists want. He wants what they do. Liberals want a nation with Biblical principles and policies.

Jesus wants people to help pregnant women and girls at risk of having abortions. I want that too.

I do get it. Because it is what we all want. Politics and big government have nothing to do with it.

 

[HARK!]

did you even read this?....because it doesn't support your claim

Nonsense.

On December 12, 1924 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR promulgated its degree "On the procedure of production, trade, storage, use, keeping and carrying firearms, firearm ammunition, explosive projectiles and explosives", all weapons were classified and divided into categories. Now the weapons permitted for personal possession by ordinary citizens could only be smoothbore hunting shotguns. The other category of weapons were only possessed by those who were put on duty by the Soviet state; for all others, access to these weapons was restricted to within state regulated shooting ranges. Illegal gun possession was severely punished. Since March 1933 the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale of firearms (except for smoothbore) hunting weapons without proper authorization was punishable by up to five years in prison. In 1935, the same penalty was imposed for possession of knives. During the Great Patriotic War, the civilian population had to hand over all the personal hunting weapons to the Red Army for defence against the German invasion. The same was true for weapons left by retreating German invaders in the war. They were to be surrendered to Red Army troops, the NKVD or local Soviet authorities within 24 hours. Cases of stolen weapons were also brought to criminal justice.

Since the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 the USSR saw a small wave of liberalisations for civilian gun ownership. Soviet civilians were allowed to purchase smoothbore hunting shotguns again

 

[Quartermaine]

Nonsense.

On December 12, 1924 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR promulgated its degree "On the procedure of production, trade, storage, use, keeping and carrying firearms, firearm ammunition, explosive projectiles and explosives",

But you claimed:

Josef Stalin In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Roman politicians passed laws in 140 BC to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power.

How do you see this as any different from any other populist action whatever they are socialists or not.

What do you think Trump is doing when he gets the crowd to chant that Mexico is paying for the wall or he makes some insane claims just for the benefits of his base and to fire the press up or cuts taxes financed by national debt.

Bread and circuses.

 

[Yekcidmij]

"They" are millionaires and billionaires who vote for Republicans.

I'm not sure the category "millionaires and billionaires" all vote Republican, but ok.

Jesus told people to not be greedy at all.

Ok, then I think it would be prudent not to try to take other people's stuff by coercion.

When rich people want tax cuts and complain about paying high taxes, they are being greedy.

But when people want to take their stuff by coercion, those are not greedy? And since when is keeping your stuff that you earned "greedy?" I find it hypocritical that people wanting to take other people's stuff (especially when by coercion) would think that the people wanting to keep their stuff were the greedy ones. Do you believe Jesus would have believed Exodus 20:17?

A counter argument could be made against you in the same manner. You're complaining about low taxes because you're greedy and want other people's stuff and would go so far as to take it from them by coercion.

I think a better approach is to start by dropping the accusations of vice against an entire category of people (who you don't know and who are not a homogeneous group of people), pitting one category of people against another, and then claiming this is what Jesus vote for. A better approach is to treat others the way you want to be treated. You don't want people taking your stuff, so treat others with the same dignity. You don't want to be categorized and be judged by the characteristics of the category, so don't do it to other people. Judge people based on their own merits, not those of an abstract, arbitrary category.

If rich people, knowing their tax dollars will go to Medicare,

Well, that's part of the government's budget, sure. But this doesn't even begin to discuss relevant things like costs, prices, efficiency, quality, or availability. I don't think controls on these key elements should be taken as a given just by virtue of taxation. You assume too much in your posts without justification.

That might be a gross exaggeration

It was. If you want to discuss a dysfunctional health care market and possible solutions, that's fine. But let's not dress a legitimate discussion about health care in moral claims to other people's stuff.

Remember Jesus gave people free health care,

Is this really comparing apples to apples? I assume Jesus' healing power is an unlimited power and resource, in which case the comparison is non-existent. And did Jesus force one group of people to pay him for providing "free health care" to other people? Was his "free health care" paid for by levying taxes? How extensive was his "free health care" anyway on your view? It wasn't provided to everyone in the Roman Empire, or even Judea, or even just the tiny village of Nazareth, and it wasn't even provided on more than one occasion to the people he did provide it to. I can count 20-30 people depending on what you think about the demon possession healings. And what diseases did Jesus' "free health care" cover? .... In any case, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[HARK!]

osef Stalin In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

Notice the capital I in the word In.

]osef Stalin: In

There fixed.

Even with the typo, if you knew your history; you would understand that Stalin continued and expanded the Draconian gun laws of the Soviet Union. If you knew your history; you would understand that 1929 preceded Stalin's rise to power by just a few years. If you knew your history; would also understand that, defenseless, millions of people died at Stalin's hands.

Now let's stop being deceptive. It's clear that you know your history; and that over a colon, your looking for a loophole to support this murderous Socialist ruler. Are there no bounds to what Socialists will do to further their agenda?

 

[GodLovesCats]

But when people want to take their stuff by coercion, those are not greedy? And since when is keeping your stuff that you earned "greedy?" I find it hypocritical that people wanting to take other people's stuff (especially when by coercion) would think that the people wanting to keep their stuff were the greedy ones. Do you believe Jesus would have believed Exodus 20:17?

I have earned nothing. I can't get a job. My mom gave me some money because she loves me and cares. I did not ask her for it; she just did it. If people have enough money to give to the poor, they should feel the same way: care about others enough to help them. I don't even know what coercion means. All I am saying is if people who have too much care about people who don't have anything, there is no reason they should complain about paying high taxes. There is no hypocrisy in that.

 

[Yekcidmij]

If people have enough money to give to the poor, they should feel the same way: care about others enough to help them.

I agree. People should give charitably as their particular circumstances allow. But you've been discussing taxation, not charity.

All I am saying is if people who have too much care about people who don't have anything, there is no reason they should complain about paying high taxes.

There are some big differences between taxation and charity. The former is involuntary the latter is voluntary. The former involves less choice while the latter involves more choice in where to direct donations.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I am talking about taxation for programs like Medicare and Social Security that help poor people. If a rich person cares about poor people there is no reason for him/her to hate paying high taxes. So I am still not done waiting for people to prove conservatives care more about helping poor people than what they have too much of already.

 

[Yekcidmij]

If a rich person cares about poor people there is no reason for him/her to hate paying high taxes.

Sure there is. Said person could believe that their taxes are being misallocated, being used inefficiently, onerous, and/or it could simply be that that the taxpayer thinks they could use the funds in better ways. It could be that the taxpayer just doesn't appreciate their stuff being taken by force. So there are perfectly good reasons to "hate" paying taxes that don't amount to immoral reasons.

So I am still not done waiting for people to prove conservatives care more about helping poor people than what they have too much of already.

So is the problem with conservatives in general or "rich millionaires and billionaires?" The category is changing.

 

[Albion]

So is the problem with conservatives in general or "rich millionaires and billionaires?" The category is changing.

and if it's millionaires and billionaires, look no farther than the stage when the next Democratic presidential debate occurs.

 

[Need answers]

There is a huge difference between forced generosity and "free will" generosity by following the teachings of Jesus.

Exactly.