That’s interesting, since post # 819 merely repeats the salient factors from post #47, for the free enterprise Late Scholastic system that works so well to enable everyone to produce some wealth and to do with it as they choose through free-will.Cruxis117
I don’t see any problem here now.
The scripture does not have to be twisted, Romans13:1-7 is there to add respectability, and those words were written by Martin Luther during a time of great evil,and he was willing to accommodate his political masters, I believe this liturgy came from the pen of King Solomon who gave birth to the justice system, on military lines a good way to keep the tens of thousands of slaves fearful of GodYou’re right, they have. From Hitler to other horrid people, this Scripture has been twisted to suit their sick ideals. Likewise though, people have always twisted Scripture. This is nothing new. But likewise, just because people twist the Scriptures does not mean that they aren’t true.
People often claim that the Commandments(when I mean people I mean Fundamentalists, JW’s, and others) are being violated by our use of icons and pictures of Christ the Lord as well as of angels, yet they twist this to suit their own ideologies, forgetting other parts of Scripture. Why I am bringing this up is primarily because we know that this twisting of this particular peice of scripture does not make the scripture itself (the part about worship of idols) untrue. Likewise, Romans 13:1-7 does not become untrue just because it has been twisted by horrid people.
One monetary system, = no more money markets.One people one planet, don’t take your brother for granted.
The Great Depression was fuelled by Hoover and then F.D.R. using his socialist New Deal by raising taxes, expanding public works spending, establishing welfare programs, destroying existing crops, imposing acreage reduction requirements, legislating for cartels to establish minimum selling prices, and limit output. We all know how deep and long that fiasco was.Ad nauseam you repeat “you don’t see”: no one who can be so obtuse will ever see, for in
Post #775:
At Hoover’s insistence, followed by FDR, wages remained high even throughout the Great Depression propping up unemployment at an average of 18% throughout. The Keynesian “purchasing power” fallacy of prosperity had trumped over the fact that savings are the source of investment. Yet Americans bought more than twice as many refrigerators in 1935 with unemployment over 20% than they bought in 1929 with unemployment at 3.2%, but over a million had no wages at all. By 1938, 1.2 million were out of work. The continued failure was to realise that wages are a cost of doing business and that for maximum employment have to reach a sustainable level.
Without those policies econometric estimates show that the “Depression would have been completely over (less than 5% unemployment) by 1936.” [Richard K Vedder & Lowell E Gallaway, Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America (New York, Holmes & Meier, 1993, p 142.
**Post#762:
There’s nothing weird about what I wrote. If you don’t like your job and decide to quit you can always look for another job that suits you better. People do it all the time. So long as the government allows businesses to flourish,there will be multiple opportunies.Hmm, weird, I thought that people needed a job to provide for themselves and their family. So, you’re totally fine with having the above situation described happen to a father of four. And does it? Weird, so that’s why we have so many companies that are completely Catholic which follow the Church. Right. The day that happens I’ll agree with you.
The Environmental Protection Agency,which is against oil companies,makes them drill far offshore,where drilling is more difficult and potentially dangerous than on land. Hence,the deadly accident and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.Example?
Many of the laws imposed upon businesses have little to do with protecting workers. They are proposed as safety measures,but are really intended to gain control over businesses. Socialist politicians like it when businesses do things wrong or when dangerous accidents happen,because it brings opportunies for the government to step in and gain more control. Fines and taxes do not protect anyone. The condition of lower class workers in 19th century England were made possible due to the fact that they were despised as a class,displaced from the country,did not have well ordered communites,did not have much of a sense of their own dignity and were not raised in civility. Hence,they could be easily misused and mistreated by companies. In America,we do not have much of a peasant class except for some of the illegals migrants. Most people have a sense of their own dignity and live in orderly communities. If the middle classes were to become impoverished for lack of employment,the people would not degenerate into a slavish condition. They would still have a sense of dignity and would behave in an orderly manner and would get themselves organized so as to build themselves up again,because self-respect and orderliness,civility and cooperation are what they are used to.But if the government is less involved, then the laws and fines and taxes that actually help protect workers from businesses that could exploit those workers will not exist, and then we go back to 19th Century Britain (although you could say that America is following that path…)
There is no such thing as real public property. It is government property. As for liberty,it is individual persons that must have it,because we exist and live as individuals. There can only be common liberty to the extent that the people have personal freedom.Currently, you are probably influenced by Classical Liberalism. You believe that private property and personal liberty overrule public property and common liberty.
Governments also abuse poor people,as with the “Poor Law”,instituted by Queen Elizabeth’s government.From the 1800’s onward, we saw that simply having the government step away from intervention and regulation of certain parts of the people’s lives left hundreds of people at the mercy of those who would inhumanely hurt and exploit those who need to work.
No,I assume that too much regulatory control by the government takes away freedom.Mr. Frick and the Homestead Company is an example of this. You assume that having some control and some laws somehow mean that freedom is instantly taken away.
Somalia does not even have an orderly,civilized society. If the people in general are not orderly and civilized,then both government and companies will be able to mistreat them.Only a fool believes that there are two answers to a multiple choice question. Just as implementing too much government intervention is a bad thing (Communism) not implementing enough is bad as well, as seen by such countries as Somalia.
Roosevelt was surrounded by socialists,and the New Deal was a socialist program. Reagan’s policies did not uproot the socialist programs that came before him. His economic policies were reversed by the Democrats and some Republicans in Congress after he left office. The current administration and Democratic Congress is definitely socialist in character. The reason why the national debt is nearly equal to the GDP is because of governement spending on entitlement programs,not because of Reagan’s policies.Even FDR saw that you needed some government intervention, with the introduction of the New Deal. But sadly, “Reaganomics” has uprooted what the New Deal should have planted, and now America’s GDP is equal to their National Debt. Funny, I thought Capitalism would work…
Very interesting, not surprised,An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A…
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because
when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away,
no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.
Face Realityathair_siochain
Working for a living (living to work) is part and parcel of the System. Our knowledge of life has us believing we have to work for a living.
You parrot this ad nauseam. Demeaning Christ by repeatedly trying to tie Him to a pet prejudice (socialism), condemned by His Church, is the height of self-deceit.Christ was a Socialist of sorts.
“in the sweat of your brow you shall eat you daily bread”Thank you Sandy Kay (post #825). Brilliant!
Face Reality
Working for self and family is God’s command after the Fall: “Cursed be the ground because of you. In toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life….In the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread…” (Gen 17,19).
As St Paul proclaims, work is a duty: ‘If anyone will not work, let him not eat.’ ” (2 Thess 3:10). [CCC 2427].
You parrot this ad nauseam. Demeaning Christ by repeatedly trying to tie Him to a pet prejudice (socialism), condemned by His Church, is the height of self-deceit.
No. Why would you feel that?
His Church tells you what’s wrong with socialism.
The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:
Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.
- The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
- Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
- The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
- Rejects the principle of subsidiarity
Any ONE of these condemnations, based on the understanding of human nature, eliminates the scourge of socialism which is an ideology.
Abu-- you could use Genesis 37 chapter 41 -42-43 to support your argument.“in the sweat of your brow you shall eat you daily bread”
why should this quote only apply to those who do the real work, what had Christ to say about parasites, those bludgers who need others to finance their pleasurable lifestyle.
do you collect rent?.if you do- because that would explain your fixation with the idea Capitalism is great.
In case you haven’t noticed,socialist politicians tend to be greedy with the wealth of the citizens,and socialists tend to think that it is doing God’s work to have the government redistribute wealth. And the Devil does lead people to commit sins.A blinded by greed Christian has two rules , that govern their lives,
1- The Devil made me do it,
2- I am doing Gods work.
These two rules allow — blame or guilt to be swept aside, ,
Christ did not tell us to use government to take care of the poor and sick,he commanded us as individual persons to do it. The government cannot love and it is not the proper vehicle for fulfilling God’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.Christ was a Socialist of sorts,
a government who looks after the poor ,the sick, the blind, are called Socialists.
That is what Christ said we must do,
Communist governments (like China) need the money generated by capitalist businesses to support themselves,just as socialist governments do. They are both opposed to capitalism in which people get to keep most of the money that they earn and run their businesses without much governement interference.Communism is a System apposed to Capitalism. Socialism is not, those hard line Conservative Capitalists on this thread speak with a forked tongue, they will do whatever is needed to stop their gravy train being derailed.
No. Faithful Catholics assent to all doctrine on faith and morals and are guided by Christ’s Church on social issues.athair_siochain
do you collect rent?.if you do- because that would explain your fixation with the idea Capitalism is great.
Are you anti-Semitic? Because that would explain your fixation with “rent-collectors” and “money-lenders.”“in the sweat of your brow you shall eat you daily bread”
why should this quote only apply to those who do the real work, what had Christ to say about parasites, those bludgers who need others to finance their pleasurable lifestyle.
do you collect rent?.if you do- because that would explain your fixation with the idea Capitalism is great.
The Environmental Protection Agency,which is against oil companies,makes them drill far offshore,where drilling is more difficult and potentially dangerous than on land. Hence,the deadly accident and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The oil companies drill on very few of the acres they have under lease. They go where there will be the biggest return on their investment. That is why BP was drilling where it was. Because there was a lot of oil there. If they didn’t want to risk a spill they would have put into place the safety measures that counties like Brazil insist upon when deep water drilling.But that would impact profits so they took short cuts.
BTW, did you know that oil and gas exploration is exempt from the clean water, clean air and super-fund statutes?
Many of the laws imposed upon businesses have little to do with protecting workers. They are proposed as safety measures,but are really intended to gain control over businesses. Socialist politicians like it when businesses do things wrong or when dangerous accidents happen,because it brings opportunies for the government to step in and gain more control. Fines and taxes do not protect anyone. The condition of lower class workers in 19th century England were made possible due to the fact that they were despised as a class,displaced from the country,did not have well ordered communites,did not have much of a sense of their own dignity and were not raised in civility. Hence,they could be easily misused and mistreated by companies. In America,we do not have much of a peasant class except for some of the illegals migrants. Most people have a sense of their own dignity and live in orderly communities. If the middle classes were to become impoverished for lack of employment,the people would not degenerate into a slavish condition. They would still have a sense of dignity and would behave in an orderly manner and would get themselves organized so as to build themselves up again,because self-respect and orderliness,civility and cooperation are what they are used to.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the events that precipitated the earliest labor laws. Maybe you are unaware of the child labor that was used in US textile mills, or the working conditions exposed in “The Jungle” by Sinclair.
Maybe you are unaware of the National Guard machine gunning the workers during the Dorr War in RI, or maybe you are unaware of the conditions in the coal mines in Appalachia. Perhaps you are also unaware of the sanctioned slavery through conscription of blacks in the post civil south. Apparently you are unaware of the death rate among workers before OSHA and you probably were never made aware of the benefits of the Hazardous Substance acts.
Are you unaware of the history of labor and environmental laws in the US and the events that precipitated them? That could be the only reasonable explanation for the conclusions and anecdotes you posted .
Peace
Why do you ask.Are you anti-Semitic? Because that would explain your fixation with “rent-collectors” and “money-lenders.”
I think I’m going to just let your response stand as is.Why do you ask.
If you knew as much as I do about landlords and money lenders you would realise they are part and parcel of all organizations., every government throughout this world – have a majority of landlords and moneylenders,in control-- I base this on a investigation that found that 50 politicians out of 50 turned out to be rent or interest collectors, so I went no further, assumed most of the rest would be landlords and moneylenders. that is a fair assumption, Capitalist and Communist governments exploit the people who do the real work, and those at the top gain great wealth, some of the messages on this thread uses quotes from the Bible, to accommodate their support for greed, I could do the same,.
History is filled with records of people who used the Bible to add respectability to their evil ways,
A eight year old girl is burning at the stake, because she owned a cat, she is surrounded by holy people with Bibles praying to God to forgive her, I am sure God took this girl in his arms, made sure she did not feel pain. Capitalists would have sold the Holy people the fuel for the fire,
today it is not about owning a cat. if you are threat to the pleasurable lifestyles of the greedy-- you become a target
Socialism does not have an exact definition. It can refer to anything from the idea of government redistrubution of wealth to a nationalized,government controlled health care system to the Communist governments of Russia,China,North Korea and Cuba. Socialism is always statism. It always involves inappropriate,burdensome government regulation over the people’s lives and economic matters. It always involves a disregard for human rights and responsibilities and natural social order,which come from natural law. And this is done under the guise of achieving doubtful goals of fairness and equality or safety.This isn’t a defense of socialism by any means, but I believe that some individuals on this forum are misguided in their understanding of what socialism is defined as.
Who says that’s what socialism means anyway? Socialist governments do exert control over businesses and over how they pay workers. This intrudes upon the business owner’s authority to judge what his employees ought to be paid,and makes is difficult for businesses to function,and it has the effect of causing workers to lose the incentive to improve their performance and situation.Socialism does not mean the “equal distribution of goods” thereby meaning that even if you work harder than a co-worker, you get paid exactly the same amount.
What does that mean in practice? Why should eveyone be laboring “equally”? Are we all supposed to have jobs in production and be content with a dreary social equality? And who should have the authority to decide what workers ought to be paid?In fact it was Vladimir Lenin (not the noblest of men by any means) who said that “an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor”.
The main tenet of Marxism is the abolition of private property,which is a contradition of natural law,and is oppressive to human dignity. We all have a God-given right to own private property. There is no justification for abolishing wages. It is for business owners to decide how workeare compensated. And they do decide this with conseration for the workers’ skills and effort.Also, Marxists view labor to be of the utmost importance for the state, therefore the Marxist idea (prior to the abolishment of the wage system) is that one is compensated for his/her work based upon the skill and effort involved.
Socialism does not have an exact definition. It can refer to anything from the idea of government redistrubution of wealth to a nationalized,government controlled health care system to the Communist governments of Russia,China,North Korea and Cuba. Socialism always involves inappropriate,burdensome government regulation over the people’s lives and economic matters. It always involves a disregard for human rights and responsibilities and natural social order,which come from natural law. And this is done under the guise of achieving doubtful goals of fairness and equality or safety.Again, this is not a defense of socialism. I think it does much harm to the reputation of the Church when her believers speak falsely of opposing ideologies.