Is fiscal conservatism not Christian?

[Caesar517]

It is not the Form of Government, but what Government Does. Pls see above on Social Responsibility teaching of Our Lord and His Church
Vivat Jesu

Social responsibility and government responsibility are two very different things.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, I’m saying you are wrong – because you did not provide an example of a willing buyer and seller. You provided an example of a buyer **under threat of death **in an unlikely situation.

What I provided was an example of monopoly power and how it was immoral to exercise monopoly power. The example was extreme because I didn’t want to cause the issue of monopoly power to become part of the dispute.

Now, monopoly power is not an all or nothing phenomenon. Markets do not go from Monopoly to perfect competition with the entrance of one competitor. Perfect competition is as rare as monopoly. So the question is, at what point is exercising your monopoly power immoral? For example, Microsoft has some monopoly power over its products. The price of their products is higher than it would be in a perfectly competitive market. At what point does Microsoft’s raising of their prices become immoral?

 

[Sailka]

Social responsibility and government responsibility are two very different things.

:thumbsup: Please consider Our Lord's Ideas on 'social responsibility', First voiced by our Lord himself > Feed the starving, help the Sick and widows and those in jail. Please do not try to seperate Social Responsibility from the duties of government, besides protecting our nation :shrug: How can Federal subsidizing our wealthiest, highest profit margin industry .... the pharmaceitical..be justified ? Vivat Jesu

 

[Caesar517]

You’re not making any sense, so I’m going to finish my physics homework now…

 

[bilop]

Please do not misrepresent Government Responsibility. Charities and charity furnish only partial needs of those in true need. Food stamps are essential for those without adequate food, like myself. My foodstamps have been cut to $20 to $137 monthly, because of current federal administration. Can of Pork and Beans supper, instead of $1 TV dinner. “Health Care” of USA is universally ranked one of worst in world of advanced countries, in results, because is focused on subsidizing thousands of for profit ‘healthcare’ businesses with tax dollars. Yet Americans pay twice as much per capita for healthcare as any other country in world, with terrible results. USA infant mortality survivability has dropped to only about 43rd in world. Best healthcare systems in world, without bias, are National Health care systems like France at half the per capita cost. And are millions more uninsured now, than 8 years ago, with vastly higher spending on HMO’s and the like. Charity can cover very small percent of misnomered “social” needs essentials like Life, Health, Food, Housing. True Christianity like Catholic Church teach the principal that Government is for those essentials that individuals and groups can not furnish. Such as National comprehensive health care, with copayments appropriate, instead of more than twice as expensive very heaviliy beaurocratic controlling healthcare businesses, now subsidized. Please do not distort or misrepresent the roll of govermnent. Vivat Jesu

NO. Helping the poor is the responsibility of individual Christians, not the government. If the government didn’t take 40+% of our income in taxes, charities would be FAR better funded.

There is no way you can say the Church requires the government to offer nationalized health care. For 1950 years, no Christian country had socialized medicine. The Church has never tought this.

Individuals and groups certainly can provide their own health care and health insurance. The only reason the health insurance market is so screwed up is b/c of government policies on tax deductibility, what service must be covered, etc. Prior to WWII all health care was privately provided, the world didn’t end.

God Bless

 

[summasix]

Please consider Our Lord’s Ideas on ‘social responsibility’, First voiced by our Lord himself > Feed the starving, help the Sick and widows and those in jail. Please do not try to seperate Social Responsibility from the duties of government, besides protecting our nation How can Federal subsidizing our wealthiest, highest profit margin industry … the pharmaceitical…be justified ? Vivat Jesu

Social Responsibility is well defined in the Bible. Government, however, is scarcely mentioned. Government is a popular method used by mankind to bring order to itself. But that doesn’t mean government is in any way morally imperative. Government may be an effective vehicle to exercise social responsibility, however it is not the only one. Almsgiving is another. So is volunteering. And teaching. Last but definitely not least intercession.

Now lets say we want to utilize the government in caring for the poor. How shall we do it? Should we use taxes to directly give them cash, regulate unfair business practices, outlaw factors that lead to poverty (e.g. divorce), subsidize big business to lower food prices, or increase opportunities for employment (to name a few)?

Clearly there are manifold ways to approach this problem, and the question is not that we should, but how we should balance each method to efficiently yet lovingly eliminate poverty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I provided was an example of monopoly power and how it was immoral to exercise monopoly power. The example was extreme because I didn’t want to cause the issue of monopoly power to become part of the dispute. a

First of all, monopolies are not capitalism since the defintion of capitalism includes competition.

Secondly, your example was not one where a willing buyer makes an offer – you had a person on the point of death.

Now, monopoly power is not an all or nothing phenomenon. Markets do not go from Monopoly to perfect competition with the entrance of one competitor. Perfect competition is as rare as monopoly. So the question is, at what point is exercising your monopoly power immoral? For example, Microsoft has some monopoly power over its products. The price of their products is higher than it would be in a perfectly competitive market. At what point does Microsoft’s raising of their prices become immoral?

Actually, Microsoft’s contracts are enforced by law – which is what all the lawsuits were about. Which makes my point that government creates or aids monopolies.

And, of course, there are competitiors to Microsoft. My company used to use WordPerfect as our standard wordprocessing system – partly because it handles graphics so well in storyboarding computer aided instruction programs. But we had some mysterious problems with it, the company treated us with contempt, and we then switched to Microsoft.

 

[Sailka]

**

NO. Helping the poor is the responsibility of individual Christians, not the government. If the government didn’t take 40+% of our income in taxes, charities would be FAR better funded.

There is no way you can say the Church requires the government to offer nationalized health care. For 1950 years, no Christian country had socialized medicine. The Church has never tought this.

Individuals and groups certainly can provide their own health care and health insurance. The only reason the health insurance market is so screwed up is b/c of government policies on tax deductibility, what service must be covered, etc. Prior to WWII all health care was privately provided, the world didn’t end.

God Bless

**

(1) Why are you avoiding all the facts I presented, brother? (2) I submit, and everyone agrees, Muslims especially as well as Atheists, that ‘taking care’ of the poor, and starving, and sick, is Every person’s responsibility, not just individual Christians. It is universally accepted as social responsibilty. (3) Which ‘christians’ will take individual responsibility for helping the massivelly growing number of poor, underpaid in the USA? (4) How many Americans pay the theoretical highest Tax book rate of 40%? Are vast number of deductions for that tax rate. Aware that almost no one pays 40% Tax rate? (5) I never wrote or thought that the Church requires national health care. (6) Are you aware of the 1992 National Study that Found the Best Health care system in USA? The Catholic health care and hospital system, non-profit. The Clinton administration proposed a National System based on Catholic system, but was defeated by very close vote in Congress, lobbied by the healthcare for profit industry. Why do you think that the French, German, British, Candian, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc National health systems are rated Far more effective…at less than half the percapita cost of USA… than our for profit system of Tens of thousands of health businesses, for profit? (7) Which health care systems Work, which advanced country sytem does not? Ours is considered worst of all advanced countries. Again, at twice the per capita cost. (8) I suggest what any study finds. Our USA health system is FAR less regulated than European health systems are. And it is the Tens of thousands of health businesses and especially HMO’s and thousands of insurance businesses with vast beurocracies to find denials of coverage and payment that are the problem. (9) Pls consider the Wikadelphia strongly dicumented prentation on SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, which recently began in 19th century with NOVUM NOVARUM, after our Lord’s teachings 1970 or so years ago. Vivat Jesu

 

[Olivermax]

I read or saw on tv an investigation that showed that “heartless conservatives” actually gave much more personally than liberals. Liberals want the government to relieve them of responsibility of giving to the poor. I think what we have now is a pretty good system. Our government does provide emergency relief. But the American people are very generous personally, and give far more than our government.

 

[WSD]

Liberalism and Conservatism both can be Christian. Like all things what matters is what is in your heart. Many Liberals suport Government spending to take care of the poor, not because they wish to help, but because it is easyer that being bothered with such people, themself. Like wise many wealthy Conservatives like the Private Charities over the Government, because they can have their name posted and people can praise them for their generousity. Neither is being Christian with your finance.
Many though support Government programs because they see them as the best way to give people a chance to grow and develope as a person. Others belive in the best way to help a person grow is to teach them to fish, so they learn how to support themselves and grow as individuals. These are both Christian ideals.
Personally, I feel as a practical matter, Fiscal Conservatism can be a more effective way to go, in the long run.
Peace be with you
WSD

 

[abukamoon]

As Christians, we each have a responsibility to take care of those in need. This DOES NOT equate to encouraging the state to take on this responsibility. This is an individual responsibility.

For one thing, the politicians are more interested in using social programs to control us, than to help those who are in need. Secondly, there is little control over who actually receives whatever benefits might be bestowed.

And thirdly, when government is involved, we can expect massive fraud. Not only on the part of the recipients, but also on the part of those who do the administering.

So the answer is, we need to keep the state out of the charity racket. We as individuals are responsible, not the state.

 

[Caesar517]

As Christians, we each have a responsibility to take care of those in need. This DOES NOT equate to encouraging the state to take on this responsibility. This is an individual responsibility.

For one thing, the politicians are more interested in using social programs to control us, than to help those who are in need. Secondly, there is little control over who actually receives whatever benefits might be bestowed.

And thirdly, when government is involved, we can expect massive fraud. Not only on the part of the recipients, but also on the part of those who do the administering.

So the answer is, we need to keep the state out of the charity racket. We as individuals are responsible, not the state.

Well said.

 

[Telemachus]

Subsidiarity, anyone?

From the CCC:

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."4

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

QFE. Seriously people, read your Belloc and Chesterton while you’re at it. Distributism as an economic organizing principle is fantastic.

State-charity kills human-charity. Why? Because charity is hard work, and most human beings – being sinners – do not mind giving hard work to a 3rd-party to do while contributing no hard work themselves. “Well isn’t a private charity a ‘3rd party’?” Private charities are different because they are run independently by private citizens, not by hired bureaucrats. For private charities to exist, Christians have to contribute their time, money, and work directly and voluntarily. This is real, human charity, not a self-maintaining machine like State-charity.

“So why not support both?” Two reasons:
(a) State-charity takes away funds that could be used to support private charity. Resources taken by force from one must result in not as much being given to the other. The opposite cannot occur because no private charity can force you to give money.
(b) This has been brought up before, and should turn everyone away from State-charity immediately: who makes the decisions? If a private charity you support decides to give in on some moral issue that’s important to you, you may withdraw your support and give it to someone else. This is impossible with State-charity.

For all those who think that statism can be squared with Christianity, give it up already. The State is secular and anti-Christian and it is never coming back. Furthermore, the inherent utopianism of State-charity is anti-Christian. Stop feeding the vampire, and instead help folks like me kill it so that we can get back to living sane lives again.

God Bless,
Telemachus

 

[stinkcat_14]

First of all, monopolies are not capitalism since the defintion of capitalism includes competition.

Secondly, your example was not one where a willing buyer makes an offer – you had a person on the point of death.

Time for an economics lesson for you Vern. Capitalism requires perfectly competitive markets. In perfectly competitive markets, there are so many buyers and sellers that neither one can have any influence on the price of the good in question. Now, your initial comment was on labor markets, what an employer offers and what an employee accepts. However, labor markets are not perfectly competitive. So the labor markets are not capitalism, which makes your original point invalid.

Actually, Microsoft’s contracts are enforced by law – which is what all the lawsuits were about. Which makes my point that government creates or aids monopolies.

And, of course, there are competitiors to Microsoft. My company used to use WordPerfect as our standard wordprocessing system – partly because it handles graphics so well in storyboarding computer aided instruction programs. But we had some mysterious problems with it, the company treated us with contempt, and we then switched to Microsoft

Microsoft does have competitors, but because they have monopoly power they have some scope to raise the price above that which would occur in a competitive market? Is is price increase because of monopoly power moral or immoral?

 

[johnlal]

Responsibility is a question of right and wrong. All people, regardless of religion, have the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Therefore, we should be able to expect responsibility from all people, not just Christians.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Time for an economics lesson for you Vern. Capitalism requires perfectly competitive markets. In perfectly competitive markets, there are so many buyers and sellers that neither one can have any influence on the price of the good in question. Now, your initial comment was on labor markets, what an employer offers and what an employee accepts. However, labor markets are not perfectly competitive. So the labor markets are not capitalism, which makes your original point invalid.

Time for an economic lesson for you:

1. The world is not perfect.
2. Capitalism exists.
3. Ergo, Captialism can exist in a non-perfect world.
4. A thing, including an hour of labor, is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept – and you know this, or you would not have created a scenerio were the seller was not willing but was compelled to buy under threat of death.

Microsoft does have competitors, but because they have monopoly power they have some scope to raise the price above that which would occur in a competitive market? Is is price increase because of monopoly power moral or immoral?

You say they have monopoly power – but saying it don’t make it so.

And, as I pointed out, much of Microsoft’s so-called power is based on contracts enforced by the government. Without government power behind those contracts, Microsoft would have no power at all.

 

[Sailka]

I read or saw on tv an investigation that showed that “heartless conservatives” actually gave much more personally than liberals. Liberals want the government to relieve them of responsibility of giving to the poor. I think what we have now is a pretty good system. Our government does provide emergency relief. But the American people are very generous personally, and give far more than our government.

Facts refute your opinions. (1) “heartless conservatives” do have vastly more money, and do write more tax deduction checks to charities. (2) ‘Liberals’ are far poorer, so can give little. But studies found poor people, aka liberals, have far higher % giving, although little. (3) “Heartless conservatives” write checks to charity, and have fundraising galas, rsvp. “Liberals” get out and do the massive amount of volunteer wok personally, in soup kitchens, homes for pregnant women, etc, etc. (4) Preciselly the opposite of who expects government to relieve them of helping needy. “Social conservatives” always cite Welfare, as not requiring their volunteeering (‘welfare’ to poor, needy now vastly reduced, replaced by massive increase this administration by Federal govt welfare to biggest, most profitable companies, and wealthiest individuals, which has resulted in current months all time record deficits in US history ) (5) The current “Social Conscience” administration has done all these, technically (to be nice) Bankrupting the USA, From wealthiest world leader in all stats. (7) The oft cited ‘USA is biggest donator to charities’ is true only by size of USA, totals. The reality is that HIghest standard of Living nations, have far higher per capita giving. Nations such as the scandinavian and european Christian nations, with National Health care, free or low priced university education, Month lobng paid vacations, and yes, high taxes to pay for all the resulting free ‘social programs’ they subsdidize, gladly. (8) Where did the Federal Emergency relief to Katrina devastated area go? Not to people Needing, but Big Corporations, massive profits, hiring cheapest (often illegal) labor. (10) Everyone has ignored the Oldest Human lessons, developed by our first human ancestors > (a) work together for common good, taught by all religions, (b) Nobless Oblige…Those who have, are obliged to give to those who do not. (c) Essential Islam teaches that one does not Begin his meal, until very poor associate has finished meal he gave him. Vivat Jesu, not in self

 

[stinkcat_14]

You say they have monopoly power – but saying it don’t make it so.

And, as I pointed out, much of Microsoft’s so-called power is based on contracts enforced by the government. Without government power behind those contracts, Microsoft would have no power at all.

Can you give me an example of one of these so called government contracts?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you give me an example of one of these so called government contracts?

Who said "government contracts?’

Microsoft has contracts with vendors. In return for a low price for Microsoft products, the vendors agreed to sell all their computers loaded with Microsoft products.

Should a vendor sell a machine loaded with a competing system (and some did), Microsoft would sue – in a government court.

The whole thing was thrashed out in a series of lawsuits – again, in government courts – some years back.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Who said "government contracts?’

Microsoft has contracts with vendors. In return for a low price for Microsoft products, the vendors agreed to sell all their computers loaded with Microsoft products.

Should a vendor sell a machine loaded with a competing system (and some did), Microsoft would sue – in a government court.

The whole thing was thrashed out in a series of lawsuits – again, in government courts – some years back.

My bad, I misread you. Ok, so if Microsoft does have monopoly power, is it immoral for them to use it to raise their prices?