She adds: "What variety of change and what they are losing with their change concerns them not at all. That’s why they elected a radical leftist President who is the process of nationalizing our banks and delivering socialist government to the United States of America." She then posted a link for Berit Kjos article entitled Smiling at Socialism and Scorning the Bible. Kjos talks about two ideals of socialism "Solidarity" and "Common Good". Well, these seem harmless enough right, I'm thinking Jesus would be all about solidarity and common good. But then Kjos writes:
"Diverse people trained to find "common ground." (The "diversity" is needed to
erode the old values) The "common vision" and new values required for this
planned solidarity are most effectively planted in minds through strategic
propaganda and facilitated group dialogue blending opposing views into an evolving consensus. Aldous Huxley describes the results in Brave New World Revisited"Assembled in a crowd, people lose their powers of reasoning and their capacity
for moral choice. Their suggestibility is increased to the point where they
cease to have any judgment or will of their own. ... they are subject to sudden
excesses of rage, enthusiasm and panic. In a word, a man in a crowd behaves as
though he had swallowed a large dose of some powerful intoxicant [See The
Dopamine-Driven Church]. He is a victim of what I have called
'herd-poisoning.'”[7]
He writes the following about Common Good:
"The driving vision of solidarity. American individualism must yield to collective thinking and action. Personal "good" must yield to the "good" of the collective -- including redistribution of resources. Though it sounds compassionate, this process destroyed both Russia's middle class and personal incentive. It left everyone equally poor -- except the elite rulers who controlled everything.
Yet, socialist change agents still believe that with a bit more psychology, sociology, surveillance and assessments -- all part of today's re-education -- the dream can be accomplished. But they are wrong! Whether subtle or coercive, the march toward global solidarity will bring terror and totalitarianism, not peace and plenty. And it will surely raise hostility toward Christianity, which is incompatible with the rising socialist system. As Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto (1848):
"...communism abolishes eternal truths... and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience....
"The Communists... openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."[8]
Today such change is gradual and alluring rather than forceful and alarming. Influential Pied Pipers like Rick Warren speed the process. According to Christianity Today, Rick Warren is pleased to share Obama's inauguration platform with Bishop Gene Robinson, a homosexual who has promised to give the prayer without using a Bible. Complimenting Obama, Warren said,
"President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground."[9]
For the record my problem with Gene Robinson is not that he is homosexual that's business for him and God to work out(or not) my problem is Gene Robinson a Christian Bishop saying that he would make sure his prayer wasn't "too christian." You know, folks get mad at black conservatives because they falsely believe that we have sold out our race. But these same folks running through the aisle, snotting, crying and shouting hallelujah on Sundays don't give a flying fig about a Christian minister selling out Christ!
I have a problem with any christian who is so caught up in the "Hope and Change" mantra of our day that they have forgotten the God that they profess to serve. Now, if you aren't a Christian then I'm not talking to you --do what you do.
So, was Jesus a Socialist? Probably, but because we are sinful beings in a body of flesh, socialism will always be deviled and corrupted by our human nature.
39 comments:
"But these same folks running through the aisle, snotting, crying and shouting hallelujah on Sundays don't give a flying fig about a Christian minister selling out Christ!"
Might be because the congregation Robinson was speaking to on that particular day wasn't exclusively Christian.
Suppose a Muslim had been chosen to give the invocation and went on an extended riff about the greatness of Mohammad.
CBW, you would have been the first one screaming.
I love ya my sista but conservatives have to understand that it ain't all about THEM.
Not at all UptownSteve it's about staying TRUE to who YOU are. If a Muslim Imon (I hope I spelled it right) were giving the invocation then I would expect him to pray to Allah. Granted, I wouldn't be touching and agreeing but he is what he is. Robinson is selling out the Lord he claims to love and serve and that is disingenuious.
If we want complete freedom in this country then no one should be "watering down" their faith to appease another group.
In the eternal spectrum of things --what's the point of having Faith if you are willing to lay it down whenever it is politically expedient to do so?
The correct spelling is "Imam."
"Imom" is a porno star.
True.
LOL!!!!!!!
oh, lol...Well, I'm sufficiently embarrassed now.
Hello CBW:
You wrote: "So, was Jesus a Socialist? Probably, but because we are sinful beings in a body of flesh, socialism will always be deviled and corrupted by our human nature."
We seem to have current proof that CAPITALISIM "will always be deviled and corrupted by our human nature"
All systems of men are ineherently flawed because humanity is inherently flawed from the fall.
The best we can do is apply certain aspects of the different social / political ideologies we have avaialbe too us to create the best society we can.
I don't think socialism is any better than capatitalism, both have aspects that can be utilzed to produce a better socieity.
DJBlackAdam you write:
"We seem to have current proof that CAPITALISIM "will always be deviled and corrupted by our human nature...All systems of men are ineherently flawed because humanity is inherently flawed from the fall."
Point taken.
I'm assuming you are Christian by your language. If so, do you find anything disturbing about black Christians overwhelming support of Pres. Barack Obama solely because he is the First Black President and the historical gravity of it all, while ignoring his position on issues of Faith?
I know (UptownSteve) it's not ALL about Conservatives but I think if one is Christian they should stand of Christ not "black solidarity". How do you feel about this DJ Black Adam?
Hello CBW:
You wrote:
“I'm assuming you are Christian by your language.”
You are assuming correctly.
You asked:
“If so, do you find anything disturbing about black Christians overwhelming support of Pres. Barack Obama solely because he is the First Black President and the historical gravity of it all, while ignoring his position on issues of Faith?”
Considering most African American are Democrats or vote Democrat, I can’t say their support for Barack was solely because he was Black, if you had a majority of African Americans voting for Condi Rice, Michael Steele or even Colin Powell BECAUSE they are Black, then I’d have to say race was the factor.
Outside of that, I don’t see either the Republicans OR Democrats as representing the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The Republicans talk a good game, but being a Christian or supporting Christ principles goes far beyond opposing abortion and / or gay marriage.
I voted for Barack Obama, though not my first choice, his position on health care for all, especially the poorest Americans; and his position on the two wars we are in were my reasons for supporting him, black or not.
I think that Bush and Cheney were no more servants of God then Obama and Biden.
In my opinion, at least for the elections I have been able to participate in, I don’t think we had a candidate that put the Kingdom of God first.
“We seem to have current proof that CAPITALISIM "will always be deviled and corrupted by our human nature"
What people who like to blame capitalism for our current economic woes fail to realize is that we do not live in a pure free market/capitalist system. We live in a quasi socialist/capitalist system. The US hasn’t ever tried pure free market capitalism. It was a MIXTURE of regulation, de-regulation, big government oversight, and quasi free markets that caused the current economic problems, not pure capitalism.
"Blogger Zabeth said...
“We seem to have current proof that CAPITALISIM "will always be deviled and corrupted by our human nature"
What people who like to blame capitalism for our current economic woes fail to realize is that we do not live in a pure free market/capitalist system. We live in a quasi socialist/capitalist system. The US hasn’t ever tried pure free market capitalism. It was a MIXTURE of regulation, de-regulation, big government oversight, and quasi free markets that caused the current economic problems, not pure capitalism."
In what universe, Zabeth? Please, provide models of a given society that runs on "pure free-market" capitalism. How did their working class make out? Where did their capital to generate more capital come from?
@Brother,
You just proved my point and answered your own questions. Like I said we do not live a pure free market system. Therefore you cannot blame free market capitalism for the economy's current problems- as that is not the system currently in place.
Yaron and Don do a better job of explaining it than I can.
www.aynrand.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=42921&em_id=45883.0&JServSessionIdr001=yxitba1zt3.app7a
I did not prove your point with my statement; I understood perfectly well what you were saying; that this is not a true or "pure" free-market society, so therefore capitalism is not why we are in the place we are in. No, my point was if your original statement is true, could you point out an example of a country where "pure" fre markets worked out well?
Then you made your case worse by pointing out Yaron Brooks, of the Ayn Rand institute, an organization that has held the position that the U.S. should have nuked Afganistan after 9/11. Nice.
and:
http://ariwatch.com/OReillyInterviewsYaronBrook.htm
Yeah, I know, that has nothing to do with the so-called "Quasi-Capitalism" practiced by a a quasi-socialist like George W. or a FULL "socialist" like Obama. Zabeth, notice how Mr. Brooks and Watkins in that "article" aren't very specific or even point out instances to back up this so-called period of "unprecedented" wealth nor do they even name the countries that practiced laissez-faire capitalism for examples because for the most part, that hatchet piece you referenced to is pure theory and wish-work.
These supposed disciples of novelist Ayn Rand who we affectionately refer to as the Randians, have been screaming to anyone who will listen that the current and worsening global economic crisis is brought on by a combination of regulation and "quasi-capitalism".
According to a Sept. 19 press release from the Center’s President Yaron Brook, “The unfree market has failed. It’s time for a truly free market.”
The Randians and other similarly-minded free-marketeers conveniently ignore is that “big government” doesn’t just do what it does in a vacuum but responds to the desires of the most powerful forces in our society. Expanding home ownership was highly profitable for everyone from homebuilders to mortgage peddlers to the financial wizards who bundled these mortgages and resold them in the global marketplace. The aura of prosperity that came with the housing bubble was also key to getting President Bush re-elected in 2004.
A real analysis suggests that the structural source of this crisis is the long-term (since 1973) decline of wages for U.S. Workers even as productivity (and corporate profits) has soared. Maybe this is the "high standard" they are refering to the standard of living for the rich. Are you rich, Zabeth?
Families looking to maintain a middle-class lifestyle - the Amerikkkan dream or to at least avoid being poor, saw people of color, women and younger members of the work force added to the workforce in much greater numbers. When that was no longer enough, families went into debt. Meanwhile, as the rich became ever richer, they poured their money into the markets and various speculative manias always in search of the highest possible return on investment. Under such conditions, it was inevitable that bankers would bring together the profit-seeking resources of the investing class and the home-owning aspirations of the struggling middle class to give birth to the great housing bubble. To the extent government presided over these nuptials and encouraged irresponsible behavior, its because that’s what capital wanted.
The nature of the beast.
So there we have a historical perspective.
Oh, and here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
Thought I'd let you off with this.
You're welcome.
I cannot point to countries where pure free market capitalism has been tried because they largely don't exist. That however, does not make the system irrelevant or automatically mean that it's a failure. I can point to countries where sociailsm and communism have been tried and failed or in the mist of failing (i.e. USSR, Cuba, even China's economy is becoming more capitalist). Or to countries that are currently socialist and have left their populace over burdened by taxes, big brother government, and government systems that function based on rationing (France, Germany, Canada, UK). Maybe that's your ideal but it's not mine.
Second your comment about the Randians and Afghanistan is irrelevant to the discussion and beside the point. But hey you're a lib, so it's not really all that surprising.
Finally, your argument that the government responded to what capital wanted is not entirely true. The govt, due to pressure from social engineers (often liberal, often socialist) pushed the idea that all should have access to the American dream and that standards should be amended, changed, dumbded down- whatever you want to call it- so that everyone can have access to the American dream. Hence the creation of Fannie and Freddie, the CRA, increased regulation, deregulation, fraud, exotic loans, and eventual bubble burst. There were many hands that played a part in this problem. And since we do not live in a pure capitalist economy you STILL cannot blame capitalism for our current woes. If you're going to say that than you're going to have to point the finger back at socialism too.
@Zabareth:
"The US hasn’t ever tried pure free market capitalism. It was a MIXTURE of regulation, de-regulation, big government oversight, and quasi free markets that caused the current economic problems, not pure capitalism."
In that case, then no one has ever tried pure "SOCIALISM" either, in either case, the the current economic problems were primarilly caused by DERUGULATION, not "regulation", and LACK OF OVERSIGHT, not "big government oversight"...why not just admit that the conservative god Reagan screwed up with the supply side economics and derugulation that followed, especially the derugulation of the financial services industry...
Someone needs to understand what socialism is.
My pointing out to the Randan cult in that they are wingnuts, that is they feel that unbridaled violence in war; especially against civilians is 'ok', then their idea of unbridled capitalism is somehow good for all is just as faulty when it comes to their 'logic' their thinking.
@Zabareth:
Oh I'm sorry, I said the conservative god Reagan "screwed" up, he actually did well for who he was trying to do well for, the RICH who have made hand over fist for the last 28 years, while continuing to dismantle and rob the middle class and the poor....
@Zabeth - wow, just looked some of your blogs. Wow.....
Well, I can now see why the Randians hold weight with you.
I make no apologies for who I am or what I believe; just like I wouldn't expect you to. I'm also not going to be offended because you don't like what I have to say. Call me a wingnut or cultist all you want.
Second, now that I have a better understanding of your point about Afghanistan I will say that it still doesn't hold weight with me as this is war and it's still quite a leap to make that conclusion. BUT I am not going to engage in a debate about appropriate and inappropriate military responses and how they relate to economic mindsets as I do not believe that this is the time nor place and that's a whole-nother can of worms.
I'll agree with you on your overall point; we will agree to disagree on everything - for me, a person's view on war and economics are interconnected. No, I do not consider you a wingnut, but the Randians are and I was just writing out-loud as I drew lines connecting your own beliefs and endeavors with the Randies. Sorry, I'll stop doing that....
@Zabereth:
I find it funny you want to point to homeownership as the cause of this fiscal problem, or should I say the homeowners.
O.K., let's first start with the fact that Low and Moderate income borrowers doesn’t necissarily translate to borrowers with bad credit, it translates to assistance with down payments and mortgage guarantees, perhaps if the Financial Services industry hadn’t been lazy and actually thought out ways to give loans to people predicated on ACTUAL INCOME (How Radical that is), they may have tried for better loan programs to guarantee.
However, how does any of this really deal with bundleling and selling sub-prime mortgages (rated as risky loans) into SECURITIES (not rated as risky) which is what got Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and others in trouble?
Let me explain in a bit more detail: Lenders didn’t relax anything, at least banks didn’t, what banks actually did was purchase and create mortgage companies to capitalize on making loans to poor people and other people that they charged excessive fees and interest on: “Banks did stupid loans because they were making RECORD PROFITS off of these stupid loans: i.e. No Income verification loan, No doc loans, etc., because they felt the worse case scenario is that they’d foreclose on a $200,000 house loan to have a house now worth $250,000.00".
When the market went south, that solution was no longer viable. NONE OF THIS HAPPENS WITHOUT LAX STANDARDS IN BANK REGULATIONS that lead to banks being able to have these arraingments. This would have been bad enough, but the fact that mortgages they new damn well were shaky were put to be sold in marketable securities.
Fact is, making loans to poor people is rather simple if one wants to do it responsibly. 1, you need affordable houses, 2, you need to do the loan based on ACTUAL INCOME (what a concept), many poor people had decent credit scores, but to allow a program that approves people with decent credit scores (620 and above) that DOES NOT VERIFY INCOME, is criminally negligent at the least.
Statistically speaking, if a person shows that they pay their rent, they generally pay their mortgage; affordable housing makes affordable mortgages, simple as that.
Human greed is the cheif predicate here, sure the greed of some of the individual homeowners is part of this, and as such no one was championing bailing out thes ehomeowners, however; Human greed is often ignored when talking about Coroporate America or the free market, so maybe if we remember that Corporations are run and owned by alot of humans, we might grasp the concept that they cannot run unchecked, as they have under Reagan’s derugulation, President Bush, Bill Clinton and the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, the current President and HIS Republican congress.
Again, let me break this down:
1. Bank does stupid sup-prime loan with “no income verification for $300,000 house
2. Bank puts loan in pool of loans and sells as marketable security
3. Investors make big money off of the dividends supported by the mortgage rates
4. Buyer pays Mortgage for 12 -24 months, all of a sudden loan adjusts, buyer can’t pay, buyer gets foreclosed on.
5. House now has a balance of $298,000 BUT low and behold house is now worth $330,000
6. Bank does another stupid sub-prime loan with “no income verification”
7. Bank puts loan in pool of loans and sells as marketable security
8. Investors make big money off of the dividends supported by the mortgage rates
And it goes on and on UNTIL:
9. Buyer pays Mortgage for 12 -24 months, all of a sudden loan adjusts, buyer can’t pay, buyer gets foreclosed on.
10. House now has a balance of $328,000 BUT low and behold house is now worth $295,000
11. UH OH!!!
See what we have here? Corporate greed and now, the Chickens have come home to roost.
Zabeth:
Sorry I spelled you name "Zabareth", my bad...it's late :-(
CBW, I would like to join this conversation, but it would seem to be a fruitless effort. I will say this, I am a fan of Berit Kjos, her book Brave New Schools I would recommend highly to Uptown Steve, DJ Black Adam (Black Adam by the way is one of the most evil villains in comic book history, and not a nickname I would use as a Christian) and brother Komrade.
I must disagree with the premiss of Christ as socialist, Christ is a theocratic monarchist as He has established a kingdom in heaven and will be establishing an eternal kingdom on earth with His return. Any other nomenclature is derived from an attempt to place God in a humanistic framework and concept of government.
The simple truth in the natural is that in the almost one hundred year history of communist philosophy, there has not been a single example of a success, if you understand the philosophy that undergirds socialism/communism, then you understand that a core principle is the replacement of the primacy of God for the state and eventually man as the state gives way to pure communism which is the absence of government.
This is what the left is attempting to create in the USA by growing the role of government and the dependancy of the people on the government. This is also the reason that the left fights so hard to eliminate God from the public square, and why the black church has been so thoroughly co-opted by the democrats.
The God of the Holy Bible wants us to depend on him completely, not the state, not each other, and certainly not on one man, especially one who has proven to be as antithetical to the precepts of God as Mr. Obama. As I state in my latest article, Open Up It's the Wolf!
"even Muslims hate abortion and it is prohibited in Islamic nations as a great evil, as it should be in Christian nations.
But somehow in America, some Christians don’t see it as the most important issue to be concerned with when choosing a leader. God’s most precious gift, life, gets relegated below universal health care, redistribution of wealth and “yes we can”. I say how do you get to “Hope and Change” if you don’t start with life? Issues like abortion, sinful lifestyles, and accountability, are spiritual in nature, causing one to reflect on your relationships with your fellow man, who it is much easier to give a handout to, than a hand-up, and to a creator God who is the only real Judge."
@Digital Publius writes:"The God of the Holy Bible wants us to depend on him completely, not the state, not each other, and certainly not on one man, especially one who has proven to be as antithetical to the precepts of God as Mr. Obama. As I state in my latest article, Open Up It's the Wolf!"
I agree with you wholeheartedly and you would think that the Church would KNOW and DO better. It's such a sad commentary on the spiritual condition of this nation.
CBW you got that right, The church in America no longer preaches sin and repentance, the church is more interested in teaching, your blessing is right around the corner prosperity and kingdom now nonsense as opposed to sound doctrine. If the black church in particular preached the Gospel and sound doctrine not a single black Christian would vote for a democrat much less Obama.
Peoples stance on the war on terror, on the death penalty, and the like, key reasons our people use to reject conservatism, are driven by a lack of Biblical expositional teaching. It is the reason they are able to compartmentalize Christian convictions and vote for a party that advocates for some of the most vile positions extant in the world.
The social agenda of the left that so many black folks advocate for is just as unbiblical as the life issues. The redistribution of wealth for example, flies in the face of the concept of grace giving and Biblical charity, and again puts an emphasis on man and fosters irresponsibility.
A great example of the Biblical perspective on charity can be found in the book of Leviticus:
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:9,10
This is wisdom. In God’s economy we can provide for the poor without destroying the spirit. The Israelites were commanded to leave a part of their land ungathered for those who were willing to come and get it for themselves. In other words they still had to gather for themselves, they had to work to eat. This is the sort of charity that allows a man to keep his dignity and sense of self worth. When you fall into the habit of accepting things that you should be providing for yourself on a regular basis, it destroys your will and character, It has the effect of making one weak and servile. This is exactly what has happened in large measure to the black community in America.
I have read your loving attempts to reason with some of your commenters and this was the first day my blood pressure was low enough for me to add my voice to yours LOL. I love your blog.
To you CBW, RESPECT!
@Digital:
1st. You do realize that BLACK ADAM is a "fictional" character?
2nd. And in that fiction there are revisions, like the one Geoff Johns did for Black Adam (Teth Adam) in Justice Society of America and other writers have creative licence with what take they have (like those awful mischaracterizations in DC's WWIII and the Black Adam miniseries), predicated on the JSA "Black Reign" characterization of Black Adam, I have no problem with him.
3rd. Either you are being facetious or willfully ignorant if you are positing that I actually think that Jesus would prescribe to ANY of the social-political systems of man, be the socialist, capitalist, communist or whatever new thing we come up with.
The socialist argument is only made by me when the money hungry don't give a crap about the poor republicans try to co-opt Jesus in their neo conservative world views.
Jesus represented and preached the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, beyond and in spite of any system of man, social, political or religious.
It can be agreed that Jesus was NOT a socioalist, but he damn sure wasn't a capitalist. Altynnovo vora veshayut, a poltinnovo chestvuyut,Tovarsich. MEANING: One hangs a theif who steals a little, but honors a theif who steals a lot, comrade. (i.e. the GOP would put you away for pimping someone, which they should, but give you 700 Billion of government money when you rob the financial system and pimp consumers and workers)
"The social agenda of the left that so many black folks advocate for is just as unbiblical as the life issues."
YES!!!!!
"The redistribution of wealth for example, flies in the face of the concept of grace giving and Biblical charity, and again puts an emphasis on man..."
YES!!!! Humans engineering their own society and eradicating the "human need for greed" - ok, you're almost there....
"and fosters irresponsibility."
And.He.Fumbles. Sorry, Publius, no prize.
But your attempts at ignoring or covering up the true nature and history of the class war on workers, farmers, and the poor (who are surplus workers and farmers - unemployed or homeless) will not go unnoticed.
Sorry about that.
"A great example of the Biblical perspective on charity can be found in the book of Leviticus:
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:9,10"
whatever....
BrotherKomrade~Do you think the answer is to take the spoils of the rich (meaning those who create jobs)redistribute those spoils to the poor and/or middleclass? Do you think this would solve the poverty problem in America? Really, I'm not being facetious I am honestly seeking to understand your point of view.
Oh and by-the-by, Publius, I edon't think there is any wisdom that someone like Kjos can impaert to me when she obsesses over children's books like Harry Potter (http://beholdaphoenix.blogspot.com/2007/08/berit-kjos-just-does-not-get-it.html).
Seriously, I doubt she has the intellectual capacity to even handle Socialist theories or perspectives much less criticize them when it is so painfully evident in her own writing that she doesn't even know what socialism is.
@CBW:
You wrote: "BrotherKomrade~Do you think the answer is to take the spoils of the rich (meaning those who create jobs)redistribute those spoils to the poor and/or middleclass? Do you think this would solve the poverty problem in America? Really, I'm not being facetious I am honestly seeking to understand your point of view."
Sorry to interject, I don't think anyone here is proposing COMMUNISM. It is simple as this, the Rich make money here off of the citizens of this country, to do so, you have to PAY to PLAY, simple as that. Whatever happened to RENDER ONTO Caesar?
What I would expect is the Rich pay their taxes to a country that they make their money in. The use of that income is another discussion...
@DJ Black Adam~"What I would expect is the Rich pay their taxes to a country that they make their money in. The use of that income is another discussion..."
Don't they? I'm an accountant by trade. My workingclass clients are the ones getting refunds.
In my experience it has been the Corporations and S-corp (aka the wealthy in relative terms) enclosing checks with their returns.
"BrotherKomrade~Do you think the answer is to take the spoils of the rich (meaning those who create jobs)redistribute those spoils to the poor and/or middleclass? Do you think this would solve the poverty problem in America? Really, I'm not being facetious I am honestly seeking to understand your point of view."
Even if you were being facetious, CBW, I'm very grateful that you posed it. I will answer with a question. Who makes the product that the rich "creates"? Do they do the work themselves? Have they ever? They are not doing the general populace charity by offering them work; they NEED the labor to produce it and they make profit from that labor and continuously seek to take what they offer to those who make the product - wage cuts, benefit cuts, or punitive actions like removing whole plants of production out of t6he country because those same laborers dare to organize for better living or to keep what little living standards they have like insurance. If I make toy and it sells for 10.00, but the parts are only $2.00, and the cost to make it even less than or as much as the parts, but I'm only getting paid $2.00 or less as a wage and NOTHING ELSE, who's getting reaping the benefits and living better than I am? I'm almost better off not working at all. Redistribution is about people getting what they put into their labor; not the 'benefit' that they are working AND starving in the process. The only rich 'victims' of redistribution would be those who have money that fell from the sky and someone came and just stole it. But those who are supposedly doing us all a favor by 'letting' us work inherently seek to get the most bang for their buck by giving unlivable wages but for high volume labor and work. With that situation, it's only fair that those who are doing the REAL work should indeed own it. For me or any true radical, the moral question doesn't enter into it; if i make the product; and sweat for it, then I should own it. Thank you, boss, you served your purpose, now suck on it.
"Don't they? I'm an accountant by trade. My workingclass clients are the ones getting refunds.
In my experience it has been the Corporations and S-corp (aka the wealthy in relative terms) enclosing checks with their returns"
And are those checks and tax refunds matching what those workers are putting into the company to make the CEOs rich?
Doubt it.How many of those workers are able to send their kids to college with no worries with those pay or tax refund checks?
Are we getting police that aren't shooting us with those tax dollars?
Are we paying for books that aren't crappy in our kid's schools? Are we? Are we seeing a true match in taxes that we pay coming back to us when those tax dollars are going to cluster bombs and stealth fighters?
@CBW:
You wrote: “Don't they? I'm an accountant by trade. My workingclass clients are the ones getting refunds.”
As they should, seems like the Rich seem to have a problem when they have to pay what they SHOULD as opposed to what Reagan and company reduced their obligation to.
You wrote: “In my experience it has been the Corporations and S-corp (aka the wealthy in relative terms) enclosing checks with their returns.”
That may be true, in regard to INCOME and Capital gains taxes, however, you do know the working class does pay taxes?
@BrotherKomarade~"With that situation, it's only fair that those who are doing the REAL work should indeed own it. For me or any true radical, the moral question doesn't enter into it; if i make the product; and sweat for it, then I should own it"
I certainly don't disagree with that. But if or when YOU own it. Who's going to do the work for YOU?
I have started a few businesses which were sadly undercapitalized and when they went south I have to tell you that I have been grateful for a job.
If you are saying that employers should give great benefits and livable wages consistent with the employee's skill set then I agree.
But, if a toy is sold for $10 and the laborer gets $2 then it costs more than $2 to make it because that laborer gets his wage of $2 plus the employer has to pay for his FICA,State unemployment insuranc,health care,sick time, vacation time, shrinkage (cause' sometime this employee steals)then there are overhead costs of the facility which like electicity, water, property taxes, workers compensation so really this toy would cost about $8.00 to make and as so the employer gets $2.00 profit.
So I agree laborer should try and get at Small business loan and start his own toy making plant but the cycle only repeat itself...
Pointless!
@DJ Black Adam~"however, you do know the working class does pay taxes?"
Some do, some don't. I have seen cases where an Earned Income Credit has returned more in refunds than were withheld originally.
@CBW:
You wrote: "Some do, some don't. I have seen cases where an Earned Income Credit has returned more in refunds than were withheld originally."
CBW, Icnome and Capital gains taxes are not the ONLY taxes, everyone pays taxes, my thing is, the Rich need to pay what CEASAR is requiring of them...
"So I agree laborer should try and get at Small business loan and start his own toy making plant but the cycle only repeat itself..."
Further people seem to assume that wealthy business owners just sit on their fat asses doing nothing or playing golf. That's not the case. It takes certain skill sets, a degree of discipline and determination (that quite frankly many people just don't have), and a certain level of knowledge and education to develop and foster a successful business. That's not doing "no work." That's not "not sweating."
@Zabeth:
You wrote: “Further people seem to assume that wealthy business owners just sit on their fat asses doing nothing or playing golf. That's not the case. It takes certain skill sets, a degree of discipline and determination (that quite frankly many people just don't have), and a certain level of knowledge and education to develop and foster a successful business. That's not doing "no work." That's not "not sweat"
Strawman, I’m just saying: “Render on to Caesar". You PAY to PLAY, You make millions of the workers and CONSUMERS of a country, pay your cost.
Simple trade.
"Digital Publius said...
Pointless!"
Thank you, sir. Come again!
Post a Comment