Govt's obligation?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by johnp.:
MT 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Notably Christ gave a command to an individual to give HIS OWN wealth to the poor... not vote for a government that would confiscate the wealth of others to give to the poor.

The idea that a sick man must pay $75,000 for an operation in a self proclaimed Christian nation shocks me.

You might want to reconsider... it was probably this system where the medical industry can make a profit off of R&D that produced the technology that made this operation possible in the first place. In other words, if we had had socialized medicine this procedure might have not been available at any price.

How can you believe a nation is only good for the blessed ones?

Where did I say that? The best thing for someone who is poor is not a handout but an opportunity. The Great Society programs in the US have produced more hopelessness, not less. They have trapped people in poverty, not freed them.

I am not saying there should not be inequalities in society but I am saying that the better off are only better off because there is cheap labour below their stations. They need protection. The state is there to protect them.

Who said anything about protecting workers?

Let's deal with one issue at a time. Labor has a value that should be rewarded.

(And begging is better than stealing in what way?)

Christ never condemned but rather encouraged those who asked for what they needed.

You mean that the other way round? It is not theft but loving your neighbour as you love yourself.

Not if you are forced to do it. There is no love nor appreciation from the receiver.

Who do you argue with now? If a people can come together and vote for this system as a people, a community, then that is what Democracy is all about is it not?

I agree with Jefferson that Democracy can become a form of mob rule that disrespects the rights of the minority. That is why the US was designed as a Constitutional Republic. Our rights were supposed to be protected by a Constitution that required 2/3's of the populace to change... Liberals ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't like.

The majority says how it is going to be. How can that be theft?

If 99% of the people in your neighborhood say that 25% of your income should be taken and distributed between them, is it not stealing?

You are Democratic I assume?

I am libertarian, so no, I am not democratic. Majorities are very frequently wrong.

If a nation can come together as a nation in obedience to a command of God how can that be wrong?

God never commanded anyone to play Robin Hood- take from the rich, give to the poor. He commanded that we be willing individually to share with those in need.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So in other words if you are ever denied the benefits of wealth you didn't earn, you are going to attack those who did earn it?

(I wouldn't call it wealth exactly.) Who did not earn it? The poor make the rich. It's their sweat and blood that is used to gain. The cheaper and sweatier the better.</font>[/QUOTE] Do they force them to work? Do they deny them their RIGHT to create a competing company? Do they even deny them the right to negotiate the value of their labor? I am not talking at all about the relationship between a worker and his employer. I am talking about the rightful role of gov't in relieving the poor.

 

[Scott J]

Your type is what we are beating here. We will get them off their horses this week, killing stags and foxes with dogs will be no more soon. A fox hunting ban! That is the class war. Their types were off raping and pillaging societies that could not defend themselves, using us to do their dirty work while back in merry old England our brothers were being hung for stealing sheep to feed themselves.

My "type"? You assume way too much. FTR, I don't buy into your permanent class system (stations). I don't want your socialistic caste system. I think anyone who has the wherewithal to become rich should have the maximum opportunity to do so. I don't think gov't should interfere or inhibit that ability.

BTW, stealing a sheep is immoral whether you pass a law to legitimize it or not.

We are putting them in their place alongside us and not over us.

So you are driven by envy, jealousy, and coveteousness? They succeeded more than you so they must be punished?

Humanity took a step forward when it took the oppotunity to help the poor as a society.

The entitlement mentality is a curse, not a blessing.

A gift from God. A command from Him too.

Please cite the instance where He commands anyone to take wealth from someone else to provide things they want for themselves.

Are you comparing man's right and God's right and declaring that you have as much right to your property as He has to His?

These parables demonstrate that Jesus had exactly that respect for property ownership. What greater comparison could be made than to God Himself? Remember that God appoints the authorities. He gives and takes away.

You actually use the salvation message to bolster your position for Mammon.

No. I use them to refute a system based on thuggery, disregard for the rights of others, envy, coveteousness, and legalized stealing.

The parables don't say that the wealthy were slaves to mammon. But they do establish that those of a lower "station" were not entitled to the men's wealth just because they wanted it.

We don't own anything but what we have we have as an indulgence from the Owner.

Absolutely. And the fact that He gives another more than you does not entitle you to organize a mob to undo what God ordained.

Your wealth is yours, that is not what class struggle entails.

It isn't? BTW, I reject the "class struggle" altogether. We should all have the freedom to pursue our hopes and dreams. If the "rich" are keeping you from doing so then something should be done. If you are keeping yourself from doing so by not assuming risks and pursuing opportunity... that is on you.

It has to do with keeping body and soul together. If the fat man on the hill can sit down to dinner then so should the poor sod at the bottom of the hill. That is disputed? I am alarmed.

That fat man is commanded by God to share. If he doesn't, God is his judge. The poor man is commanded not to steal and covet. If he does then God is likewise his judge.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am not aware of a single scripture that encourages people to rise up and take wealth away from others because they wanted something they couldn't afford.

Like food? MT 25:37. Like drink? MT 25:37. Like warmth and shelter? MT 25:38. Like free hospital treatment? MT 25:39? Close enough.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. This scripture speaks to giving out of what God has blessed YOU with, not to forcing others to give against their will.

Let God deal with those who are not charitable. He is their Judge, not you.

Now you must prove that your largesse is more efficient than a nationally governed system ensuring complete cover.

No. I must simply prove that socialism is not God's way. Which I have done. And that God has commanded an alternative. Which I have done.

We are to do what God commands. The results are His alone.

I know that Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us but He never said the destitute, the starving and the homeless did He?

No. He commanded us (you and me) to willingly give to them. He did not command us to institute a human system of gov't to take from someone else and give to them.

What's this $57,000 operation bill? That's not slavery?

Nope. It is the value of a service.... a service that is not a God-given right since it has not always been available to man.

BTW, our community currently has a poor family facing a much greater bill than this... the local churches are ensuring that these people do not go without.

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft.

Please try again to cite a proof that this is scripture.

johnp.

One person earns a dollar. It is his. Another person wants half of that dollar but did not work for it.

If he breaks into the home and steals $.50 then it is stealing. If he hires someone else to forcibly take $.50 for him... it is still stealing.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TC:
In this discussion, some have continually painted the poor as lazy, slothful losers that want something for nothing.

This is not a picture of all poor. It is specifically those that are like this and who are enabled by welfare that I am referring to.

There are countless examples of "poor" who refused to stay down. "Rags to riches" stories are a testimony against the system that negates personal responsibility.

Yet, not one has condemned corporate welfare. Large companies recieve millions from the governmment - more than any individual could receive in 10,000 lifetimes. Where is the outcry against this.

Corporate welfare is often a tax break given to a particular industry to encourage expansion and specifically job growth. It also protects certain industries, like farming, from market instability that could destroy the whole industry to the great harm of the country.

The type of Corp welfare you probably have in mind is obviously objectionable. They shouldn't be getting tax breaks just to line their pockets but this is not the norm.

Why should my tax dollars go to a large company so they can have a better profit margin? Fix this problem first, and then we can look at addressing the other.

Let me use that question as an illustration.

The governor of Illinois last year decided to eliminate a tax break given to the printing industry. RR Donnelly, one of the states major printers, announced that if the law went into effect they would be forced to install planned new equipment in Colorado instead of Illinois.

Why? Because the tax increase prevented the justification of the equipment purchase. They couldn't buy the equipment just because... it had to be profitable and make them competitive.

The governor decided to leave this "corporate welfare" in place.

 

[KenH]

A flat income tax(with a large personal exemption to keep progressivity) with no itemized deductions or credits would eliminate the talk of tax breaks as welfare.

 

[Scott J]

I agree Ken. I would favor a tax on marginal incomes over the median personal income. It would get somewhat complex with people who could use corporations as a shelter like Kerry's wife for example and use corporate assets for personal benefit.

Due to the complexity of even a flat tax, I would prefer a national sales tax on non-food, non-shelter items. It would need to be coupled with a raise of the minimum wage to prevent businesses from passing all of the expense on to the consumer.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by johnp.:
[qb] Hello Scott J.

[qb]Sickness is sickness. Poverty is poverty. We were all sick before Jesus healed us. He chose those poor and neglected even as that neglect was of their own making. Where's compassion here?

See what I wrote above. Jesus didn't institute an earthly government that would go out and to the work of loving our neighbors. When gov't issues entitlements to "the poor", the are interferring with the mission that Christ gave His followers... to love as He loved. He fed people... without gov't. He healed people... without gov't. Government programs put trust in the arm of man. Jeremiah pronounces a curse against those who do this.

</font>

So, if I understand you correctly, if you have a heart attack you're not going to the hospital but are relying solely of Jesus to cure you. Correct?

 

[johnp.]

Hello Scott J.

Notably Christ gave a command to an individual to give HIS OWN wealth to the poor...

Strangly enough Jesus was not interested in the poor at this point. He was showing a person that wanted to cling onto wealth that it would be better clinging onto Him. And that is what I was saying to you. I feel as if you are fighting for your money and woe betide any who suggest that you part with it.

...not vote for a government that would confiscate the wealth of others to give to the poor.

And again the poor commit the greatest sin in being poor! What wealthy man would vote for a socialist viewpoint. The rich man being honest would never vote for party that steals from the rich! But many did. Where did you get your country from if you didn't steal it from the redskins! You are in possession of stolen property, unless you are an Indian, in which case, "How." You aren't a rich indigenous are you? Rarer than gold if that is the case.

You might want to reconsider... it was probably this system where the medical industry can make a profit off of R&D that produced the technology that made this operation possible in the first place. In other words, if we had had socialized medicine this procedure might have not been available at any price.

...if we had had socialized medicine this procedure might have not been available at any price. And it's available to few or to all in your country. It's available for all is it not as long as they cough up the cash.

What you think, our doctors and nurses work for free? Our drug companies are still mumbling mumbo jumbo? Do you really believe the States are not in a cutthroat competition with the rest of the world? We stopped looking into the entrails of chickens some time ago. Our witchdoctors went into pharmaceuticals long ago. (Didn't change much).
You don't believe a profit can be made and a life saved for free at the point of need. You must take the profit and loss out of the hospital and place it elsewhere. You do. You put that point, whenever you can, at the insurance brokers. But when the insurance cover is not there the profit and loss factor reenters the hospital building to evict you. At the point of need is neglect. All your fine sounding words do not cover the sound of your back turning and your feet walking on. We Samaritans are doing a good job. The Lord not us.

Where did I say that? The best thing for someone who is poor is not a handout...

There you go flying your flags and banners high. The last thing the poor need is money! That's cool man. Had that off of Tatcher. Can't cure problems by throwing money at them!

...but an opportunity.

The class war continues apace. Prince Charles, this wannabe 'Defender of the Faiths', has written in a private memo that our children, read; the peasants breed, are being encouraged to be too ambitious. Yea! My education, I use the term loosely, was neglected by the ruling elite. That I could read was mainly due to my interest in space. I used to blame myself and to a degree my parents. I did not take advantage of a free education. That's true. My parents had no books in the house. They neglected my education. That's true. But the ruling elite made sure it happened like that. I was an exception. I had been given an astromomy book as a Christmas present the same year Russia launched Sputnik. I can remember it as clear as day, I was seven. None of my peers had any interests ever. Playing cards and drinking and hanging about. I taught myself what I wanted to know. A rudderless ship.
Now the kids are getting an education that was denied me. The teachers get examinations now. They must prove their worth. Their worth is 'now not proved' by churning out unskilled labour that you can give charity to to keep him in his place. We are the ruling elite and things are now getting better for all not a few. All are given dignity. It is not dignified to allow few to control the many. It is not dignified for either party. It is not dignity to turn a man out into the street and to see him go hungry for any reason. Neither for them nor for us. And I would never bow my head to any man for a crust of bread cause it is not dignified for him. You stick your charity and I'll stick to my caring society. If God wants to get mad at us for trying to be good then that's ok with me. I'm forgiven.

The Great Society programs in the US have produced more hopelessness, not less. They have trapped people in poverty, not freed them.

First you say that you lot are a whizz at R&D and then you tell me that you can't manage to run a social program that us poor miserable thieving scroungers have been running for 60 years! And that as we paid off the Marshall plan. That is not a complaint. A boast. What's it to be?

Who said anything about protecting workers?

I did.

Let's deal with one issue at a time. Labor has a value that should be rewarded.

Ok, but I will respond to your point. Labor has a value that should be rewarded. That's right. So when there is work they work, which they do here, and when there is no work they get paid so that they can live so that when the jobs are there there is someone to do them! Seems logical to me to keep your industrial machines in good order. Seems logical to me to spend your time and effort on other people.

Me.
The majority says how it is going to be. How can that be theft?
You.
If 99% of the people in your neighborhood say that 25% of your income should be taken and distributed between them, is it not stealing?

I said 'in a Democracy'. I was using the word to mean something like: a type of government that is elected to office by a majority of it's citizens for the good of all it's citizens. I see you might have a different concept of Democracy. I would like to hear it. Sounds a bit like Dodgecitiism to me.

Christ never condemned but rather encouraged those who asked for what they needed.

They are asking you for what they need. You do not condemn them then you just say no.

I agree with Jefferson that Democracy can become a form of mob rule...

That's just crazy talk. Democracy is mob rule. Demean the mob do you Squire?

Do they force them to work?

Are you serious?

I don't want your socialistic caste system.

We don't own the caste system you must take that higher up. The cast system belongs to the masters. We see men as men. I am working class. I have taken the stigma as a badge. Not a badge of honour because I am no better than any man. Socialism is not class riven it is classes acting with each other for the common good. Notice, I said classes working together. We needs their brains we do. Some of them have educations. And they use their gift for the common good. There are some really good toffs.
We took a bastion of theirs tonight. The Parliament Act was invoked for the third time since I was born.
Usually both of our houses must agree on a law and then the Queen signs it. Tonight that act was used to circumvent the Lords and pass a law without them. I think the Queen still has to sign it.
We have decided as a nation that the idea of allowing people to hunt for foxes and stags using dogs for the kill is unacceptable behaviour in our country. Dignity.
We the people are getting more control. Socialism is a good thing. Some people are socialists for the wrong reason but that does not invalidate the effects. We cannot say it is Godly in the sense that socialism is driven soley by Christian thinking, but socialism is a great gift from our Father. A tool we can use to better people.

See yer tomorrow.

johnp.

 

[Matt Black]

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


Er....no; a charity selects those recipients it deems worthy to receive according to the aims and objects of that charity; thus it is both discriminatory and haphazard in its approach to the relief of poverty

The fact that they are discriminatory is exactly what makes them superior. I have a sister-in-law that is physically able to work. Instead, she is scamming the system... in fact, she is also scamming my mother-in-law and anyone else she can get over on.

She is drawing a disability from our Social Security Trust Fund for being bi-polar. This diagnosis was made during a period when she was simultaneously abusing pre-scription and illegal drugs with alcohol.

Government is enabling her self destructive behavior and giving her a basis for rationalizing it. This is not loving. This is not charity. It is one of the most cruel things you can do to a person.
</font>[/QUOTE]Your example, about which I am sorry to hear, demonstrates that private charity, in this case your mother-in-law, can get it as wrong as public welfare. I have alerady indicated that this kind of scam - fraudulently claiming what we would call Incapacity Benefit - is unacceptable. The fact that it exists means the benefits system needs reform , however, not abolition. Oh, and BTW, 'discriminatory' does not necessarily mean 'superior'; it can equally mean 'prejudiced'; thus one comes across execrable and patronising terms like 'the deserving poor' (equivalent to 'the noble savage'), used by the rich to justify their oh-so-generous largesse towards those less fortunate than themselves whom they deem, in their infinite wisdom, worthy of a free handout. (Excuse me, but who appointed you judge and jury of someone else's moral worth?)

You talk elsewhere of God having blessed some with riches and not others. That again gives me concerns about your value judgment of another individual's moral worth. This is in itself a form of Social Darwinism; so, moving a step beyond Darwin, success and failure for you are now correlated with the moral worth of individuals as well. Not only are the fittest successful, they are morally superior, the ones most fit to control society’s power and wealth. The losers are not only poor and powerless, they are morally suspect, not fit to rule or to make proper use of society’s wealth. This can make poor or unwell Christians feel terribly inadequate, guilty and pressurised, when they have enough to cope with as it is; surely it is far more ‘Christian’ to offer practical help and compassion to our brothers and sisters, either privately or through government agency rather than to stand back and preach at them from our moral high ground about how wrong they are? Let me quote from Tony Campolo: “ Many Christians have twisted the Judeo-Christian message to mean that wealth is evidence of superior spiritual stature. Some Christians make the amount of money a person possesses a means of judging his relationship with God, pointing out that when the ancient Jews were right with God, they enjoyed such an abundance of things that their cups were full and overflowing. They say that if we keep the Law of God, particularly his command to tithe one tenth of our income to the work of the church, the Lord will prosper us beyond our imagination. Such claims are made in spite of the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in the Third World nations who love the Lord, obey his Law, faithfully tithe, and yet suffer privation beyond our comprehension. Many Christians subconsciously believe that God must be in league with the rich person.”

Such a belief system can create an arrogance in the wealthy, causing them to look upon the less fortunate with contempt. This implies that people are poor because they are lazy and wasteful; when the truth may be that poverty is the result of discrimination and economic exploitation. The poor often find themselves the victims of social injustice and psychological oppression by a society that equates their poverty with God’s disfavour. You talk in terms of 'legalised theft' as being immoral; but is not that kind of oppression also legalised theft? Is not corporate welfare, where companies get tax breaks at other taxpayers' expense, also legalised theft, as TC has alluded? Come on, Scott, be consistent! I think it is far more Christian to believe in some level of redistributive system, to correct these imbalances caused by man (not God)and his injustice to his fellow man.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Excuse me, but who appointed you judge and jury of someone else's moral worth?)

Excuse me, but who appointed you the judge and jury of someone else's moral worth and duty?

Who appointed you the authority over someone else's property? Who appointed you to say that this person has too much and this one too little? Who appointed you as the authority of how to define "too little" and "too much"?

You are guilty of what you accuse me of. I am not judging someone's moral worth. I am refusing the notion that you or anyone else has the right to do so at the expense of a third party... even if those on your side equal 50.1% of voters.

You don't have the right to pick someone else's pocket to promote your view of one's "moral worth" while at the same time denying that the picked pocket has a right to judge moral worth. That is hypocrisy Matt.

It isn't a matter of whether a value judgment will be made but rather who is rightfully entitled to make it. Those whose earned wealth will be used or those who think they are the moral authority that determines whether the wealthy should share or not.

 

[Matt Black]

No-one appointed me...or you. Our respective governments do that for us. That's part of what government does in our respective countries and part of the price we, literally, pay for having our governments. The hypocrisy lies in complaining about it while continuing to enjoy the benefits of living under that particular government; true integrity would result in leaving that particular country because of that complaint.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

Originally posted by Scott J:
[qb]
You talk elsewhere of God having blessed some with riches and not others. That again gives me concerns about your value judgment of another individual's moral worth.

Why? Why should my recognition that God has sovereignty over these matters cause you to think that I under value a person's "moral worth."

Please show me how God under values someone's "moral worth" when he blesses the endeavors of one but not another of equal skill and effort.

This is in itself a form of Social Darwinism; so, moving a step beyond Darwin, success and failure for you are now correlated with the moral worth of individuals as well. Not only are the fittest successful, they are morally superior, the ones most fit to control society’s power and wealth. The losers are not only poor and powerless, they are morally suspect, not fit to rule or to make proper use of society’s wealth.

That is absolutely ridiculous and you should apologize for so greatly mischaracterizing my view and me as a Christian.

I never said that the poor were immoral and the rich were moral. There are moral elements that contribute to financial success and failure but this doesn't speak to the whole moral character of a person. In fact, I believe that I specifically said that rich people are often plagued by a different set of moral problems... including selfishness.

Many poor people do not have a good work ethic. They may have moral strong suits but this will inhibit their financial success. This IS something that can be dealt with spiritually and overcome.

I live in America. We have a long history of people showing up on our shores with nothing then going on to achieve great things due to applying themselves to the opportunities freedom offers.

Look at some of our recent Presidents: Kennedy was the grandson (or great grandson) of a poor Irish immigrant. Ronald Reagan came from a middle class background as did Truman. Eisenhower was the son of a poor Mennonite farmer. The Bush wealth is only a few generations old. Bill Clinton came from a very humble upbringing. Jimmy Carter though moderately wealthy came from a Georgia farming family.

Many of our leaders rose from modest beginnings while few came from a long aristocratic legacy.

We also have people who fail... and many times it is because they refuse to push themselves... because they don't value work... because the are jealous and envious and think they should be rewarded for nothing. It is they, not I, who under value their moral worth... and more importantly their moral responsibility.

 

[Scott J]

This can make poor or unwell Christians feel terribly inadequate, guilty and pressurised, when they have enough to cope with as it is;

Why? Why should someone feel this way when truly in need and helped by another individual's act of charity? That can be nothing more than pride... something else that does not need to be encouraged nor enabled. surely it is far more ‘Christian’ to offer

practical help and compassion to our brothers and sisters, either privately or through government agency

Privately... absolutely. By government? No. I am not prepared to say that it is OK to shirk our God given responsibility in favor of empowering a secular government to take the wealth of the ungenerous and give it to the unappreciative.

The only possible exception I can see on this is some form of public insurance against permanent physical or mental disability that is self financed like our medical insurance from payroll drafts.

rather than to stand back and preach at them from our moral high ground about how wrong they are?

My only sermon is to you... about how wrong YOU are for mischaracterizing me because I disagree with your socialistic ideas. I believe in liberty first and always. I do not believe that any form of democratic socialism is more practical much less more moral than liberty to answer the problems of poverty. I think the most moral system available to deal with poverty is the one prescribed by Jesus Christ... giving of our own substance to others in a personal way.

Let me quote from Tony Campolo: “ Many Christians have twisted the Judeo-Christian message to mean that wealth is evidence of superior spiritual stature.

And this is obviously false. Many wealthy people are morally corrupt.

Some Christians make the amount of money a person possesses a means of judging his relationship with God, pointing out that when the ancient Jews were right with God, they enjoyed such an abundance of things that their cups were full and overflowing. They say that if we keep the Law of God, particularly his command to tithe one tenth of our income to the work of the church, the Lord will prosper us beyond our imagination. Such claims are made in spite of the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in the Third World nations who love the Lord, obey his Law, faithfully tithe, and yet suffer privation beyond our comprehension. Many Christians subconsciously believe that God must be in league with the rich person.”

This appears to address the health and wealth gospel... not issues of government entitlements. It also is wholly non-applicable to me since I did not make the connection you presumed and then argued against.

This implies that people are poor because they are lazy and wasteful;

Some people are lazy and wasteful.

when the truth may be that poverty is the result of discrimination and economic exploitation.

These are separate issues that are not well answered by gov't redistribution of wealth.

The poor often find themselves the victims of social injustice and psychological oppression by a society that equates their poverty with God’s disfavour.

Often? Proof please. BTW, these same "poor" also have moral responsibility. I submit that more people use these things you mention as convenient excuses rather than being actual victims.

Not true you say? The black community in America disproportionately suffers from social ills and poverty. They cite the things you mentioned and more. However, immigrants, even black immigrants with slavery in the ancestry, come to America with absolutely nothing and succeed. They see the opportunities and negotiate the obstacles. Too many people see obstacles... and quit.

You talk in terms of 'legalised theft' as being immoral; but is not that kind of oppression also legalised theft?

Can be, depending on the circumstances. One wrong does not justify another however.

Is not corporate welfare, where companies get tax breaks at other taxpayers' expense, also legalised theft, as TC has alluded? Come on, Scott, be consistent!

Possibly. Again, depends on circumstances. Whether I approve of the decision or not, most corporate welfare is intended to preserve industries and jobs.

I think it is far more Christian to believe in some level of redistributive system, to correct these imbalances caused by man (not God)and his injustice to his fellow man.

Then you are simply ignoring the teachings of scripture in favor of a social-economic-political philosophy.

The answer to these problems is to answer them directly and level the playing field. Not to allow the problems to continue and use them as a cash cow for a welfare state.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No-one appointed me...or you. Our respective governments do that for us. That's part of what government does in our respective countries and part of the price we, literally, pay for having our governments.

Nope. It is not incumbent upon a citizen of a country to idly sit by while government diminishes the rights of the citizens.

The hypocrisy lies in complaining about it while continuing to enjoy the benefits of living under that particular government; true integrity would result in leaving that particular country because of that complaint.

Oh. So if someone is not a socialist or economic liberal and is unwilling to "shut up" they should leave their country?

I believe in the founding principles of my nation. They include the political/economic sovereignty of the individual, sacredness of individual rights, and limited government.

America's greatest benefits are a direct product of these things to the degree that they still exist. It is not I but rather those who would turn our nation into a socialist democracy who should find another country to ruin.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Scott J.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Notably Christ gave a command to an individual to give HIS OWN wealth to the poor...

Strangly enough Jesus was not interested in the poor at this point. He was showing a person that wanted to cling onto wealth that it would be better clinging onto Him. And that is what I was saying to you. I feel as if you are fighting for your money and woe betide any who suggest that you part with it.</font>[/QUOTE] Even more strangely, I am not wealthy. I am very middle class. My family may even be comparable to yours in "station". The difference is that I respect the right of others to their property and wealth and freedom to choose how they exercise their God-given rights with due respect to the God-given rights of others.

I don't hate nor resent the wealthy. I have seen many examples of greed and generosity on their part. Just as I have seen on the part of unions, laborers, welfare recipients, etc.

I want to keep the opportunities in this country as open as possible. I am much better off than my parents at this point in life. Perhaps my children can use these opportunities to achieve much more than me. The last thing I want to see is a system that rewards the unproductive and punishes the productive. BTW, such a system can also be used by the wealthy to insulate themselves from competition "from below".

High taxes on the wealthy are much more detrimental to those on the rise than those who are already established.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by johnp.:
And again the poor commit the greatest sin in being poor!

Nope. The greatest sin of the "poor" is not taking personal responsibility for themselves. The greater offense is making one's self more of a dependent on a "master".

The rich man being honest would never vote for party that steals from the rich!

Neither should the poor.

Where did you get your country from if you didn't steal it from the redskins!

The best history I have of my particular families is that they purchased land from the Indians. In particular, my mom's family moved into the land of the Cherokee before they were unjustly removed to Oklahoma. This strongly suggests that they bought the land and dwelled together with them... as was common for the Cherokees.

You are in possession of stolen property,

This is every bit as valid as saying that you are in possession of stolen property since you likely have ancestors who won land through war.

I have no moral control nor guilt with relation to what others did 100+ years before my birth.

The unfortunate thing is that the people you mention are the perfect proof for my argument. In way of repayment, the US Gov't has extended very extensive welfare programs to the Indians... and systematically destroyed almost all vestiges of social order, industry, personal responsibility, and hope.

I grew up 9 miles from Cherokee, NC. I know first hand the devastating effects of turning people into dependents on Gov't. Alcoholism, despair, crime, moral breakdown, etc.

I had many Indian friends as a boy. The few that rose out of the malaisse did so because they rejected the entitlement mentality and wanted to be "like the whites". They saw people who were miserable but given everything. They saw people who earned what they had and were happier. They chose happiness rather than ease.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You might want to reconsider... it was probably this system where the medical industry can make a profit off of R&D that produced the technology that made this operation possible in the first place. In other words, if we had had socialized medicine this procedure might have not been available at any price.

...if we had had socialized medicine this procedure might have not been available at any price. And it's available to few or to all in your country. It's available for all is it not as long as they cough up the cash.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes and no. We do have gov't and private programs to help those in need of expensive medical procedures. Further, hospitals cannot turn away people in critical need regardless of their ability to pay... that's part of what drives up the cost of private medical insurance. The medical industry spreads the cost of the non-payees over their bills to those who pay.

Do you really believe the States are not in a cutthroat competition with the rest of the world?

No. Actually, we partly pay for your socialized medicine. You place caps on the price of medication and procedures. Companies that vend those goods/services are forced to recoup all of their R&D expense from Americans. If we ever get a gov't with enough guts to force an end to this unfairness, you will see more of the true costs of your system.

You don't believe a profit can be made and a life saved for free at the point of need.

No. By definition, no profit is made when something is free. I suppose you are referring to a profit being made when a third party is forced to pay.

At the point of need is neglect.

Really? Please cite the abundance of cases where patients in need of life saving care are turned away from American hospitals, clinics, and doctors. I would suspect that there are more cases in the British or Canadian system where rationing prevents the elderly from getting life extending care unless they pay themselves.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Where did I say that? The best thing for someone who is poor is not a handout...

There you go flying your flags and banners high. The last thing the poor need is money!</font>[/QUOTE] I didn't say that. Now did I? Please be honest. The poor need money just like the rest of us. But even more, they need the ability and motivation to earn it rather than learning to expect a handout.

Can't cure problems by throwing money at them!

That is probably the most reasonable thing you have written.

My education, I use the term loosely, was neglected by the ruling elite. ... I used to blame myself and to a degree my parents. I did not take advantage of a free education. That's true. My parents had no books in the house. They neglected my education. That's true. But the ruling elite made sure it happened like that.

How was your failure to take advantage of a free education or your parents failure to ensure your education the fault of "the ruling elite"? You are responsible for you both before God and man.

What did the "ruling elite" do to make sure it happened? Did they forbid your entry to school? Did they deny you access to newspapers abandoned at the train station? Did they force you into child labor of 16 hours a day? What? What did "they" do that made it impossible for you to make an accounting for yourself?

BTW, I went to a public school and to a public college. I earned scholarships and took out a loan to pay for my college. It made me appreciate it much more than the free portion of my education... though I probably had above average appreciation for that as well.

 

[Scott J]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Great Society programs in the US have produced more hopelessness, not less. They have trapped people in poverty, not freed them.

First you say that you lot are a whizz at R&D and then you tell me that you can't manage to run a social program that us poor miserable thieving scroungers have been running for 60 years! And that as we paid off the Marshall plan. That is not a complaint. A boast. What's it to be?</font>[/QUOTE] I am saying the philosophy behind the Great Society was flawed. You cannot teach people to be dependents then expect them to not become a self-perpetuating, ever growing burden on the society on whole.

Our gov't destroyed the black family unit in many communities by rewarding illegitimacy with a gov't check. This destruction has resulted in generations of welfare moms and in more black males being in prison than in college. Prior to the Great Society and social liberalism of the 1960's, about 30% of black children were born out of wed lock (about 5% of whites). Now, over 60% of black children are born out of wedlock and about 30 % of whites. The number one most consistent factor in American poverty is homes without a father.

Further, had any of Europe been paying the full costs of your own defense, if American's had not disproportionately paid those costs, your social programs would have been economically unfeasible.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Who said anything about protecting workers?

I did.</font>[/QUOTE] I didn't though... you changed the subject.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Let's deal with one issue at a time. Labor has a value that should be rewarded.

Ok, but I will respond to your point. Labor has a value that should be rewarded. That's right. So when there is work they work, which they do here, and when there is no work they get paid so that they can live so that when the jobs are there there is someone to do them!</font>[/QUOTE] We have unemployment insurance. It could be better but people would have to pay more for it... so it is unlikely that workers will choose to do so.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Me.
The majority says how it is going to be. How can that be theft?
You.
If 99% of the people in your neighborhood say that 25% of your income should be taken and distributed between them, is it not stealing?

I said 'in a Democracy'.</font>[/QUOTE] That does not matter one whit. If stealing is wrong for an individual acting alone, it is wrong for a group of people who happen to constitute a voting majority. Right and wrong do not change dependent on the opinion of the majority.

The majority may say "how it is going to be" but they cannot change whether it is moral or not. That belongs to God alone.

I see you might have a different concept of Democracy. I would like to hear it.

We do not have a democracy nor do I want one. We have a constitutional republic with many safeguards intended to prevent the majority from denying the rights of the minority. Some of these safeguards have been circumvented by liberals over the past 100 years or so... these acts bear their bitter fruits later. For instance, the social problems caused by the Great Society really only became clear in the 1980's.

Unless something is done, we may very well see civil war in 20 to 30 years when there are only 2 workers for each retired social security recipient... and that doesn't even begin to address their medical costs.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Christ never condemned but rather encouraged those who asked for what they needed.

They are asking you for what they need. You do not condemn them then you just say no.</font>[/QUOTE] You will never find a poor person who has asked me for bread and received a stone. Again, you seem to think the only means of caring for the poor is a socialist government. I am pointing out that the secular humanism idea of socialism is not the biblical model commanded by Christ.

Even if the church fails, there is no excuse for a Christian to endorse a system that glorifies man.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I agree with Jefferson that Democracy can become a form of mob rule...

That's just crazy talk. Democracy is mob rule. Demean the mob do you Squire?</font>[/QUOTE] Not crazy at all. Protecting "right" is important even when it is not popular.

BTW, we don't have squires. It is contrary to our view that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally- "property").

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do they force them to work?

Are you serious?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't want your socialistic caste system.

We don't own the caste system you must take that higher up. The cast system belongs to the masters.</font>[/QUOTE] Not here. The conservatives/libertarians in America reject the notion that men are classed into stations.

However we see freedom and opportunity as the means of leveling the playing field... not government.

We see men as men.

Then why don't you respect the property and possessions of others?

I am working class.

I thought you rejected the caste system.

Socialism is not class riven it is classes acting with each other for the common good.

Socialism is very much class driven. It divides people by station every bit as much as the system you quite apparently detest.

We have decided as a nation that the idea of allowing people to hunt for foxes and stags using dogs for the kill is unacceptable behaviour in our country.

This is maybe indicative of the difference between us and you. Hunting here is more of a common man's field. In fact, there are few if any things that could rightly be considered sports of the privileged in the US.

We the people are getting more control.

Nope. You are very sadly turning yourselves into dependent slaves of the state.

It is the original American ideals of liberty that empower the people by insuring their individual rights and responsibilities.

Socialism is a good thing.

Socialism is a wicked ideology of man that enslaves the masses with promises of common welfare. The only thing it has ever insured is common and corporate mediocrity.

Some people are socialists for the wrong reason but that does not invalidate the effects.

Virtually all people who believe in socialism think that the only reason it has not worked as that it hasn't been done by people as wise as themselves. They ignore that at its very core it fails to account for both the best and the worst realities in human nature.

The best- industry, morality, generosity, responsibility, cooperation, honesty, etc.

The worst- selfishness, laziness, dishonesty, greed, irresponsible behavior, etc.

We cannot say it is Godly in the sense that socialism is driven soley by Christian thinking, but socialism is a great gift from our Father. A tool we can use to better people.

Socialism is not godly because it is not found in the scriptures. In fact, its premises deny scriptural truths about human nature and responsibilities.

It does not make people better, only more dependent on the human system.

 

[Scott J]

Double post

 

[Scott J]

double post

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
So, if I understand you correctly, if you have a heart attack you're not going to the hospital but are relying solely of Jesus to cure you. Correct?

No. I will go to the hospital because I have insurance that I have paid for with what God has blessed me with.

Why do you insist on straw men arguments? Perhaps it is because you have no real ones.

 

[johnp.]

Scott J.

Even more strangely, I am not wealthy.

I didn't say you were wealthy. That is relative. I said you sound like you are too concerned about sharing in a way that guarantees all the needy are helped.
If this includes some scroungers tighten up the system. Don't disparage good because of some scroungers. We are wealthy enough to let some get away with it. Some are painters and poets, actors and actresses. We get the best if we support the workers when there is no work.

I loved Kennedy's speech on the race to the moon. When he said that you lot were prepared to go to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Brilliant! Here's the bit I like most, "And do the others things."
That was forty years ago and still you have patched up health care and social welfare programs. They waste money. You are paying through the nose for those.

I am very middle class.

I don't know if that means the same over there. There is a culture thing here. The class system is not based on wealth as such, more an attitude.
I am very working class born and brought up in the welfare state.

My family may even be comparable to yours in "station".

I married into middle class, not upper middle class but above middle middle class. I jest you not. It's very refined, so to speak.
If we want something we go and buy it. This is the life mate! Praise the Lord. I have made it. Easy street.

The difference is that I respect the right of others to their property and wealth and freedom to choose how they exercise their God-given rights with due respect to the God-given rights of others.

If they are God given rights then God given responsibility goes with it. Those who do not care will face God.

I am much better off than my parents at this point in life.

And so am I.

Perhaps my children can use these opportunities to achieve much more than me.

My daughters are using us as their springboard. We are a springy springboard. Anything they need to get on they will get. That is ok. The better off have always been better off.
Our education system is up and running. It was not for me. (What's this, 'No child left behind'? Is this a free education system? I heard Bush mention it or the news readers on Fox.)

The last thing I want to see is a system that rewards the unproductive and punishes the productive.

There you go again. Just because there is a system that supports a person if they do not work it does not mean that everyone will take advantage of it. Unless you are making a judgement on the character of your countrymen. You know them better than me but here in Britain we have dignity following a worker.
It's bad enough to have to 'sign on' for benefits, it is beneath a nations dignity to allow begging and it is beneath a workers dignity to beg.

BTW, such a system can also be used by the wealthy to insulate themselves from competition "from below".

No, it does. It is not 'can' but 'does'. Wealth is bound to protect itself. Was there not a law in Israel that everything had to be reset to default after seventy years? There was a redistribution of wealth invented by God. Is that not so. I have not paid much attention to the year of Jubilee.

johnp.