Originally posted by bill718
This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not a Socialist as many here claim. As a Real Estate Agent, and Landlord, I run my own business, pay my own bills, balance my own books, and have never drawn a penny of public assistance. I am however opposed to those who think that Capitalism can, and should police itself, as well as the stupid idea that giving massi that the G O P does not share my views...and if this makes me a Socialist. SO BE IT! 😏
So you would agree that it is "good" to reduce the quality of living for the "haves" so that the "haves nots" can be elevated? I suppose its all how you want to shift the misery around. Of course, like in the former USSR this model is said to be the goal but never is achieved. What ends up happening is that you have fewer and fewer "haves" and an oligarchy of sorts forms forming a more totalitarian like regime. Then the masses are herded like cattle in the ways they see fit as we lose more and more of our freedomes for "the common good". Even more frightening is the fact that no power exceeds that of the state. For example, if insurance companies get out of line, you can always go running to Big Brother. However, if Big Brother gets out of line then all you have is a meaningless vote for one of two parties that are headed, or at least have been headed, in the same direction anyway. In fact, I am glad you conceed both Obama and Bush are headed down the same road.
As for myself, I am also a Christian. Don't you think I care about the poor as well? If you look at the ministry of Jesus, he was about transforming hearts and minds to do the "right thing". In fact, he NEVER politicized his message. So where is this transformation if giving is forced? In fact, where is giving? Giving, in fact, becomes a tax and receiving becomes an entitlement. You then rob the giver of the blessings associated with giving and you rob the one receiving of the gratitude of having recieved something. What you wind up with is a society hell bent on getting out of paying taxes. like most we see in governmnet doing, and wefare recipients clamoring that what they are getting is never enough. Then you add insult to injury as the middle man, the government, ends up takiing a good chunk of the money that is suppose to go to the poor. No wonder neither party is supportive of reform. They both benefit financially from the setup.
To illustrate my point farther, you may want to take a look at your Bible and study the nation of Israel. There were provisions made for the poor, but not mandatory pay outs nor any middle men. In fact, they had no king at first, only judges to keep the peace. Read 1 Samuel chapter 8 when the people demanded a king to rule over them. God warns them about the consequences of having sinful men ruling and reining over them, and we still see it today.