Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[ComputerGeek25]

When you drive over the border to Buffalo, did you see any difference at all? Anyone who is not blind would see the enormous difference right away.

Uh, we aren’t talking about Buffalo, we are talking about Toronto.

Buffalo has it’s fair share of nice areas, BTW. Also, much smaller than Toronto.

 

[sidbrown]

Uh, we aren’t talking about Buffalo, we are talking about Toronto.

Buffalo has it’s fair share of nice areas, BTW. Also, much smaller than Toronto.

There is a big difference between Buffalo and Toronto, and I think anyone driving over the border into Buffalo, as I have done, will see the big difference.

 

[tjm190]

I don;t look upon it that way. I look upon it as a work of charity, because it means we have to put an effort to help those in dire need. I think that works of charity are true and good and do not in the least remove our focus from God.

If the government takes your money and uses it to help others, that is not you helping others. That’s the government helping others.

 

[sidbrown]

If the government takes your money and uses it to help others, that is not you helping others. That’s the government helping others.

But inasmuch as it is our money which is being used to help those in dire need, I look at it as related to a work of charity, and therefore it does not detract us from God, but rather brings us closer to performing the good works which are so necessary for our salvation.

 

[tjm190]

But inasmuch as it is our money which is being used to help those in dire need, I look at it as related to a work of charity, and therefore it does not detract us from God, but rather brings us closer to performing the good works which are so necessary for our salvation.

But what about when our money is used in a way that hurts others? If you want to take credit for the good, you must accept responsibility for the bad.

For example, if a police officer shoots an innocent man, did the entire town/city commit a sin?

 

[sidbrown]

But what about when our money is used in a way that hurts others? If you want to take credit for the good, you must accept responsibility for the bad.

For example, if a police officer shoots an innocent man, did the entire town/city commit a sin?

I would say generally, not. Generally, this could be a sin on the part of the police officer if he did not take proper care while he was shooting. In a case like that he should be jailed and given life imprisonment or perhaps the extreme penalty of death just like anyone else who culpably shoots an innocent person. However, there could be exceptions such as a case where you have voted for someone you know is corrupt and incompetent and has a record of hiring incompetent people for the police department. Then you would be guilty of a sin.

 

[tjm190]

I would say generally, not. Generally, this could be a sin on the part of the police officer if he did not take proper care while he was shooting. In a case like that he should be jailed and given life imprisonment or perhaps the extreme penalty of death just like anyone else who culpably shoots an innocent person. However, there could be exceptions such as a case where you have voted for someone you know is corrupt and incompetent and has a record of hiring incompetent people for the police department. Then you would be guilty of a sin.

That’s the sin of negligence/malice on your part- but the fact remains, that even if you do everything right your tax dollars may end up taking innocent lives. If you aren’t sinning, then you must be completely disconnected from tax dollars-meaning they can’t sin or do good for you.

 

[sidbrown]

That’s the sin of negligence/malice on your part- but the fact remains, that even if you do everything right your tax dollars may end up taking innocent lives. If you aren’t sinning, then you must be completely disconnected from tax dollars-meaning they can’t sin or do good for you.

No, becasue if you work to help the poor, you are doing charitable work. Oftentimes, there is not enough money around and so you have to ask the government to fund your sincere efforts in doing charitalble social welfare work which will end up helping those in dire need.
I don;t see it as a sin at all to help people who are in dire need. From the speech given by Mother Theresa we have learned that: On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, “Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.” Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, “Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.” These will ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?” And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”
So according to Mother Theresa and according to the Bible it is not wrong to do charitable work and it is not selfish at all and it is not ignoring God to do charity or to work for charity for the poor and disadvantaged.

 

[Seeker100]

No, becasue if you work to help the poor, you are doing charitable work. Oftentimes, there is not enough money around and so you have to ask the government to fund your sincere efforts in doing charitalble social welfare work which will end up helping those in dire need.
I don;t see it as a sin at all to help people who are in dire need. From the speech given by Mother Theresa we have learned that: On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, “Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.” Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, “Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.” These will ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?” And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”
So according to Mother Theresa and according to the Bible it is not wrong to do charitable work and it is not selfish at all and it is not ignoring God to do charity or to work for charity for the poor and disadvantaged.

Excellent Post!

 

[CPA2]

You can think about what you have to day in advance, but that does not necessarily mean that you lie everytime you move your lips. The two things are different.

Clinton lied about the surplus, as I pointed out.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Live according to His will and the church He established. Embrace, believe and live what is taught then what everyone needs will be obvious.

When God gives one the gift of charity, one gives the gift in a personal way so that Christ is seen with every gift. It is a way of giving that has much more meaning than dumping money into a cold, faceless, soulless, bottomless pit.

Does that lead people to their own devices? Yes!!! Let’s see who’s really charitable.

Imagine facing God and when asked if one was charitable responding with: “I paid my taxes”.

It is true that by paying taxes that one has rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

By giving of oneself by free will one has rendered that which is God’s unto God, because we must see God in everyone.

 

[sidbrown]

According to the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, the people of the United States have established the Constitution in order to promote the general welfare among other things. . This is part and parcel of the US Constitution. To promote the general welfare. This implies that the government is obliged to ensure that each and every citixen be able to benefit from what the government can provide in the way of social welfare programs. Political leaders are therefore duty bound by the US Constitution to provide for the general welfare.

 

[sidbrown]

If the government takes your money and uses it to help others, that is not you helping others. That’s the government helping others.

Regardless, the Constitution of the United States of America was established in order to promote the gerneral welfare. This is done by enactment of social welfate programs that can benefit all.

 

[CPA2]

Regardless, the Constitution of the United States of America was established in order to promote the gerneral welfare. This is done by enactment of social welfate programs that can benefit all.

It is a mistake to say that “social welfare” helps society as a whole. Social (government) welfare helps a few (special interests) at the cost of all of society. There is no free lunch. We have to borrow money from Communist China to fund government welfare.

What you never mention is that government keeps a large part of the money to grow the government. That is the reason teachers at are paid so poorly in government schools when there is more than enought money to pay teachers very well.

 

[CPA2]

Why does the government have to ration water? Rationing is a clue in solving the mystery. There is something wrong with the price of water! The price of water is below the equilibrium point. The low price tells us that water is abundant. Not so! A shortage arises.

What is the equilibrium price of water? No one will ever know unless there is market competition for water.

Would the equilibrium price solve the water shortage? Yes, price is a natural rationing mechanism.

Why is there only one water-company? One reason is the efficiency of scale. However, one reason that the text does not mention is the universal service obligation. USO means that everyone is entitled to water, especially the poor.

What is the cost of an USO? No one knows until there is market competition.

Ditto for the United States Post Office.

 

[sidbrown]

Why does the government have to ration water? Rationing is a clue in solving the mystery. There is something wrong with the price of water! The price of water is below the equilibrium point. The low price tells us that water is abundant. Not so! A shortage arises.

What is the equilibrium price of water? No one will ever know unless there is market competition for water.

Would the equilibrium price solve the water shortage? Yes, price is a natural rationing mechanism.

Why is there only one water-company? One reason is the efficiency of scale. However, one reason that the text does not mention is the universal service obligation. USO means that everyone is entitled to water, especially the poor.

What is the cost of an USO? No one knows until there is market competition.

Ditto for the United States Post Office.

If you live in the countryside, you can always dig a well in your backyard and get all the water you want from your water well. So it is a false issue, just like the false statement that Clinton always lies whenever he moves his lips.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

There is a difference between promoting and owning. The founding fathers did not intend for the government to own everything, including charities. “general welfare” has been usurped to justify every action that results in government ownership – that the government will redeem us. Though Catholics are directed abide by a moral, lawfully chosen government, the government has not, can not nor will not redeem us.

Welfare: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being from Middle English “wel faren” to fare well.

God desires us to have these: healthy in faith, happiness in Jesus, prosperity of soul.

 

[sidbrown]

It is a mistake to say that “social welfare” helps society as a whole. Social (government) welfare helps a few (special interests) at the cost of all of society. There is no free lunch. We have to borrow money from Communist China to fund government welfare.

What you never mention is that government keeps a large part of the money to grow the government. That is the reason teachers at are paid so poorly in government schools when there is more than enought money to pay teachers very well.

This might be your opinion, but the opinion of those who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America was that a major purpose of writing the Constitution was to promote the general welfare. It is written right there in the preamble, if you want the whole preamble, I can easily quote it for you. A major purpose and reason for establishing the Constitution was to promote the general welfare.

 

[sidbrown]

There is a difference between promoting and owning. The founding fathers did not intend for the government to own everything, including charities. “general welfare” has been usurped to justify every action that results in government ownership – that the government will redeem us. Though Catholics are directed abide by a moral, lawfully chosen government, the government has not, can not nor will not redeem us.

Welfare: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being from Middle English “wel faren” to fare well.

God desires us to have these: healthy in faith, happiness in Jesus, prosperity of soul.

This is nice, but still a major purpose as to why the Constitution was written is to promote the general welfare. How does a government go about promoting the general welfare except by enacting social welfare programs that will benefit those who are in dire need and are starving. It is not by giving bailouts to the millionaire fatcat executives who are weeping and crying over their multimillion dollar bonuses which they demand but do not deserve.

 

[CPA2]

This is nice, but still a major purpose as to why the Constitution was written is to promote the general welfare. How does a government go about promoting the general welfare except by enacting social welfare programs that will benefit those who are in dire need and are starving. It is not by giving bailouts to the millionaire fatcat executives who are weeping and crying over their multimillion dollar bonuses which they demand but do not deserve.

Government welfare creates special interests such as the “fat cats” that you abhor. Mix your good intentions of helping the poor through government welfare and you end up with a result that you never intended, special interests. You should not be surprised at the end result! Government employees are not public servants; they do not drop their self-interests at the door of government service.

Incentive is the key difference between capitalism (private ownership of resources) and socialism (state ownership of resources). Private ownership boosts incentive, while public ownership retards it.

If you truly are going to help poor people, you are going to have to understand incentives and the true consequences of your actions. You will also have to understand the accounting concept of internal control. You may be hurting poor people more than you are helping them.

When I was in India I did not give money to women with babies because I would be encouraging women to steal babies in order to get money. I did not give money to mutilated children because I would be encouraging parents to mutilate their children in order to get more money. However, I would buy food for the hungry and I would watch them eat it.

I follow the same procedure for the homeless in this country. I do not give anyone money. However, I do buy them food and I watch them eat it. If these people curse me, then I know that they were not hungry. They just wanted money for other purposes.

As an individual I have internal control. The government does not have internal control. We have spent vast sums of money since the 1930s on
government welfare, all to no avail. You have to ask yourself why before you advocate more of the same.