Bush Hating

[Kiffin]

I don't know if I would call Bread and Circus Welfare!!! though it might be the best argument against it!

Keep the Bread coming into your citizens to distract them from the fact your Empire is rotting to the ground. Hmmm...Sounds like the philosophy of the Democratic Party here in the USA. Maybe you are right.

Of course on a differant note Rome did supply it's own poor citizens with grain though it would be nothing compared to that found in the USA or the socialist policies found in Europeon countries and it was available only to adult male Roman citizens, and excluded women, children, slaves, foreigners, and non-citizens living in Rome.

 

[mioque]

"I don't know if I would call Bread and Circus Welfare!!!"
It is the classical example of it.

"Keep the Bread coming into your citizens to distract them from the fact your Empire is rotting to the ground."
The Welfare system, to be more precise the grain dole, was the basis of what made Augustus emperor. The emperors basically owned Egypt and the huge amount of grain coming from that land was distributed among the poor, who in turn now owned allegiance to their patron the emperor.
The same basic principle keeps US senators in power. Pork.

"Hmmm...Sounds like the philosophy of the Democratic Party here in the USA. Maybe you are right. "
To be honest the late senator Thurmond relied on exactly the same principle, most longstanding senators/congressmen in the US do.

"though it would be nothing compared to that found in the USA or the socialist policies found in Europeon countries"
Let's see, we've got the grain, the entertainment, the subsidized jobs (all those government construction projects), the government financing visits to prostitutes during certain special occasions. On the whole, Welfare during large stretches of the Roman empire was so good, that the Welfare recipients of Rome and their families could afford to eat out every single day of the week. Mind you, they needed to because the government had put a ban on cooking fires in the insulae where they lived.

 

[Kiffin]

I don't know if I would call Bread and Circus Welfare!!!"
It is the classical example of it.

As I said in the end I think you may be right BUT I am not complimenting WELFARE. Most people when espousing Welfare would not use Imperial Rome as an example to follow considering that it was a totalitarian corrupt State. If that is where many in the US want us to go...We are in big trouble!

"Keep the Bread coming into your citizens to distract them from the fact your Empire is rotting to the ground."
The Welfare system, to be more precise the grain dole, was the basis of what made Augustus emperor. The emperors basically owned Egypt and the huge amount of grain coming from that land was distributed among the poor, who in turn now owned allegiance to their patron the emperor.
The same basic principle keeps US senators in power. Pork.

I am agreeing with you more.

Welfare enslaves the people to Government.

"Hmmm...Sounds like the philosophy of the Democratic Party here in the USA. Maybe you are right. "
To be honest the late senator Thurmond relied on exactly the same principle, most longstanding senators/congressmen in the US do.

Yes, the GOP has become more like Democrats while the Democrats have become socialists. It is however the Democrats that always speak of the government as a benevolent society to help the poor. On the other side the Republican party supports Welfare for the Rich. The one group not represented by either party is the Middle Class since the GOP and Democrats are too busy pandering to their interests groups.

"though it would be nothing compared to that found in the USA or the socialist policies found in Europeon countries"
Let's see, we've got the grain, the entertainment, the subsidized jobs (all those government construction projects), the government financing visits to prostitutes during certain special occasions. On the whole, Welfare during large stretches of the Roman empire was so good, that the Welfare recipients of Rome and their families could afford to eat out every single day of the week. Mind you, they needed to because the government had put a ban on cooking fires in the insulae where they lived.

The problem is that if you were a Jew in Palestine it benefited you nothing. The Welfare system in the end makes people dependant on the government and is like a drug that makes slaves to the benevolence of Government authority. This is true with Welfare for the poor that Democrats espouse and Welfare to the rich which Republicans engage in.

To quote from the Libertarian Party platform,

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.

1. End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

2. Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity
If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

3. Tear down barriers to entrepreneurism and economic growth
Almost everyone agrees that a job is better than any welfare program. Yet for years this country has pursued tax and regulatory policies that seem perversely designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities. Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.

In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

4. Reform education
There can be no serious attempt to solve the problem of poverty in America without addressing our failed government-run school system. Nearly forty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America's schools are becoming increasingly segregated, not on the basis of race, but on income. Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate.

It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty.

http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.html

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Frankiln

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If I earn £100000 a year and get a 2% cut, I get £2000 in my pocket. The poor guy who earns £10000 a year and gets a 2% cut gets £200 in his pocket. Matt, being already £90000pa better of than the poor guy and actually needs the handout far less than the poor guy, finds himself with £1800 more in handouts from the government than the poor guy gets. That is unfair and unbiblical. Next...?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Matt

How is that unfair and unbiblical? What verses can you provide that support your view?

I'd really like to know.

 

[Jim1999]

I don't know that I hate Bush. That is a rather strong emotion. I do think he is dumb, self-serving and has an agenda all his own. Thankfully, he is not my president......come to think of it, we have had our hands full of stupidity in Canada, too...So, in that sense, we should be expressing sympathy to the USA.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[mioque]

"The problem is that if you were a Jew in Palestine it benefited you nothing."
Not exactly true. Throughout the Roman Empire, Welfare was tied to the system of patronage. The benefits would technically be a personal gift from a specific influential citizen given to you as a form of charity. You in turn would be a client of this influential citizen, supporting his political ambitions. Similar arrangements were in place all throughout the empire. So Jezus would not be receiving handouts from emperor Tiberius. Pontius Pilatus or Caiaphas on the other hand also had a host of clients they supported. Certain jews in first century Palestine most certainly had such welfare benefits.
History even reports of an unusual Jew from Palestine that had such support from the emperor himself, Josephus the historian.

 

[mioque]

Before I forget, my involvement in this thread started with this remark by Kiffin "No writings in the New Testament rebuked Imperial Rome for not having Welfare." Well welfare was there and it was widespread and just as nowadays there were reasons to complain about it.

 

[Brett]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:

Not exactly a Bush-hater, but my Gospel isn't and shouldn't be better news for the rich than the poor...

Yours in Christ

Matt

How is Bush's Tax Cut unfair. If I pay 100,000 dollard in Income Taxes and get a 2% CUT - That's $2000. If I pay $10,000 and get a 2% Cut - That's $200. If I pay $1000 and get a 2% Cut - That's $20.00 If I'm Poor and pay 0 Taxes and get a 2% Cut that's $0. How is that unfair and How is that unbiblical? </font>[/QUOTE]Unbelievable.

Did you actually think about this? Who do you think needs the $2000 more - the person paying $100,000 in income tax, or the person paying $1000 in income tax?

Your example gives $2000 to the rich guy, $20 to the poor guy, and somehow this is fair. No wonder idiots like Bush get into power.

 

[Kiffin]

Before I forget, my involvement in this thread started with this remark by Kiffin "No writings in the New Testament rebuked Imperial Rome for not having Welfare." Well welfare was there and it was widespread and just as nowadays there were reasons to complain about it.

Actually your overall argument was wrong. You are correct on The Bread and Circus program - Which was a give away program intended to distract Roman citizens from the rotting Empire around them. You are correct on that part but wrong if you mean Rome was helping unemployed workers in Arabia get a pension or having social security for poor Jews in Palestine. If welfare is Biblical why did not Paul call for Rome to do this for all poor throughout her domain? You are correct Rome did help out her citizens with Welfare (And you have shown it's corruption) BUT the context is the entire EMPIRE. So you are correct on welfare for Roman citizens and even allies.

Rome did not however have a givaway program for poor Celts in Britain. Rome was not giving away money to the poor and homeless in Jerusalem.

I am not referring to doing favors for political people which Rome did throughout the Empire. Rome however was not seeking to advance the living conditions of the poor throughout the Empire. In that sense Rome did not have a Welfare system as you find in the USA or other countries. I believe that many who started it in the USA thought it might actually help out poor people. They were wrong. It has enslaved them.


I was referring more to the universal type welfare that supposely helps the poor which Liberal do gooders think make the world a better place. Did Rome have universal Welfare for all it's subjects to advance their common good. The answer to that is No. The Apostle Paul never called for Rome to repent and start a universal welfare for all her subjects. Many Europeons think Government should Biblically do it because of Biblical admonitions to help the poor. Certaintly the poor should be helped by Churches and private charities.

Now, maybe this thread can return to Bush Haters since this has evolved into something more appropriate for the History forum than politics.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Brett:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:

Not exactly a Bush-hater, but my Gospel isn't and shouldn't be better news for the rich than the poor...

Yours in Christ

Matt

How is Bush's Tax Cut unfair. If I pay 100,000 dollard in Income Taxes and get a 2% CUT - That's $2000. If I pay $10,000 and get a 2% Cut - That's $200. If I pay $1000 and get a 2% Cut - That's $20.00 If I'm Poor and pay 0 Taxes and get a 2% Cut that's $0. How is that unfair and How is that unbiblical? </font>[/QUOTE]Unbelievable.

Did you actually think about this? Who do you think needs the $2000 more - the person paying $100,000 in income tax, or the person paying $1000 in income tax?

Your example gives $2000 to the rich guy, $20 to the poor guy, and somehow this is fair. No wonder idiots like Bush get into power. </font>[/QUOTE]No my example gives a 2% Tax Cut to all who paid taxes. That is a simple example that is fair to any one with common sense.

 

[Kiffin]

Hardsheller,

Excellent Illustration.

Whoever puts in more should get the bigger taxcut. That is fair for it's our money not the government or anyone else. In your illustration all who paid taxes, rich, poor, and middle class get the same 2% Tax Cut. That is fair and common sense.

 

[Jim1999]

I think it was a religious upstart who said..Sell what you have and give it to the poor.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Kiffin]

I think it was a religious upstart who said..Sell what you have and give it to the poor.

Cheers,

Jim

No one is denying the need for charity and helping the poor. It's just that the Government is not the one to do it or force people to be charitable people. Come to think of it, if the Government steals from the rich to give to the poor, that is not charity for charity means giving in Love.

Freely giving to your Church or Charity is the way to go. Churches have failed in the social aspect of helping people and we need to make greater efforts at this. I do not however want Ted Kennedy or Nanci Pelosi making my charity decisions for me.

 

[Jim1999]

Kiffin,
In the beginnings of socialism in both the UK and Canada, the governments stepped in because the people were NOT giving voluntarily to help those with the greatest needs. This was, of course, during the Great Depression and into the war years when there was great poverty through no cause of their own. I guess you had to be there to appreciate what that means. I was there, and that is one of the reasons I am a democratic socialist (Labour Party in UK and NDP in Canada).

It was through the great efforts of these parties that national health became a reality. We had nothing before that. We had to beg for medical care if we had no money. We must have democracy with social responsibility.

Cheers,

Jim

Ask California what happened when Hydro was put totally in the hands of free enterprise...the brownouts!!!

 

[Brett]

But surely the important part of giving is the result that it brings, not what the motive is for it.

Frankly, I can't figure out why everyone is so down on socialism. In my opinion, the government SHOULD steal from the rich and give it to the poor, which will obviously make for a more economically equitable society. Why would you want one person to make $110,000 per year and one person to make $10,000 per year when you could have them each making $60,000 per year? Clearly this is a generalization, but my point is that the rich should know that their money is going to help the poor. If they cannot accept that, then they certainly are not showing "love". Here in Canada, we pay a great deal of income tax, and everyone has free health care. Would it show love on my part to protest paying these taxes, such that some people cannot get health care because they cannot afford it? I don't think so.

Money in a society should go to those who need it most. Money should go to a hungry family so that they can buy find before it goes to a rich family so they can buy an extra surround-sound system. THIS should be obvious to anyone with common sense.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Brett:
[QBIn my opinion, the government SHOULD steal from the rich and give it to the poor, which will obviously make for a more economically equitable society. [/QB]

Which of the remaining nine commandments do you not agree with?

 

[Jim1999]

Brett,
Living in Saskatchewan, you may appreciate that socialism (CCF then) had its beginnings with five ministers of the gospel including Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister. Whilst the party was officially formed in Calgary, it was in Saskatchewan where it fully took root. It was the CCF who forced the Conservative hand to introduce old age security, and, of course, universal medicare. The latter saved a lot of caring doctors from bankruptcy. They provided drugs and medical care for a chicken, eggs and other produce,,,,and used the money of those who could pay. I would say there was a good reason why they gave......they cared.

By the way, I was John Diefenbaker's pastor at First Baptist, Prince Albert and also served at Turtleford and Lloyd.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[mioque]

Kiffin
"If welfare is Biblical why did not Paul call for Rome to do this for all poor throughout her domain?"
Since when do we have detailed records of him adressing the imperial government?

"I am not referring to doing favors for political people which Rome did throughout the Empire. Rome however was not seeking to advance the living conditions of the poor throughout the Empire."
During the Roman Empire there was no difference between welfare and influential people doing favors in return for political support.
It's the same system. The emperor giving bread&circus to the citizens of Rome is being their patron. And he is doing it not to distract them from corruption, but to establish that he is the emperor. It is one of the duties of his office. All welfare during the empire was tied to individual patrons supporting a cloud of clients.
I know it is a weird system, it's a form of welfare masquerading as charity.


"Rome did not however have a givaway program for poor Celts in Britain. Rome was not giving away money to the poor and homeless in Jerusalem."
Rome, never gave away anything, no faceless government handfouts ever, it was always tied to a responsible citizen aiding a group of needy people who was also holding an important political office for no pay whatsoever, because that is the 'duty' of an upstanding citizen. Yeah right.
Still coverage was surprisingly widespread and not confined to Roman citizens allone.

"Many Europeons think Government should Biblically do it because of Biblical admonitions to help the poor."
Actually, many Europeans think that they might end up needing such services somewhere in their future so they vote for political parties that don't turn their country in the wet dream of the Libertarian party ideologues.

As for hating Bush.
I'll be joining the standing ovation with the other moviegoers when the british PM (played by Hugh Grant) wipes the floor with the president (played by Billy-Bob Thornton) during the pressconference scene in 'Love Actually' when I see it next tuesday.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Brett:
But surely the important part of giving is the result that it brings, not what the motive is for it.

Frankly, I can't figure out why everyone is so down on socialism. In my opinion, the government SHOULD steal from the rich and give it to the poor, which will obviously make for a more economically equitable society. Why would you want one person to make $110,000 per year and one person to make $10,000 per year when you could have them each making $60,000 per year? Clearly this is a generalization, but my point is that the rich should know that their money is going to help the poor. If they cannot accept that, then they certainly are not showing "love". Here in Canada, we pay a great deal of income tax, and everyone has free health care. Would it show love on my part to protest paying these taxes, such that some people cannot get health care because they cannot afford it? I don't think so.

Money in a society should go to those who need it most. Money should go to a hungry family so that they can buy find before it goes to a rich family so they can buy an extra surround-sound system. THIS should be obvious to anyone with common sense.

And this is exactly what happens in the system of free market capitalism. The risk takers and the entrepreneurs provide the jobs for the non-risk takers and the workers and they all benefit from the wealth that is generated.

That is what has made America the envy of the Free World. Granted we still have some serious social problems - and one of them is that we have created a welfare society that has a "take all they can get" mentality and no sense of shared responsibility.

The Same Bible that says we should be generous toward the poor also says that:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
I think it was a religious upstart who said..Sell what you have and give it to the poor.

Cheers,

Jim

And that same religious upstart told a parable about laborers in the vineyard and how the master of the vineyard decided to pay all the workers the same regardless of how many hours they worked.

That story still rankles democrats, socialists and union members every time it's told.