[...] is saying the same thing I said a few weeks ago about a demotivated work force. Punish the rich and you may not get your beer at [...]

In terms of economic theory Rodney Stark regards Christianity as the father of the capitalist system. However it should also be noted that the weakness of any economic system is the people who enact it.

Someone who fears God’s judgment for abusing their position may not take advantage of loopholes that present themselves. Loopholes that may be legal, but are immoral.

Someone who does not fear God cannot be trusted with anything.

Human beings are the problem. Fix them, no problem.

@gfsomsel–This statement: “ If he is elected, I suppose we will soon all be wearing conical hats and standing out in the fields calf-deep in water planting and harvesting rice.” is totally inappropriate. It is one thing to disagree with someone’s policies, positions, and ideas. It is totally a different thing to disparage their character.
One only needs to look at Senator Obama’s voting record to see that he is a fairly typical liberal Democrat. The differences between Republicans and Democrats in recent years have been blurred a bit since the Republicans don’t seen to know how to keep a lid on the money box any better than the Dems. Still, it is very clear that Senator Obama plans to push many huge spending programs as he and his colleagues continue to promote throwing government (aka: tax payer) money at problems as the best solution. The definitions offered above are indeed telling. We (after the bailout) are well underway to fulfill def. #1 and the second half of def. #3.
Senator Obama’s attitude toward foreign relations seems to be that if we make nice and prove ourselves to be a reformed (as in no longer practicing) imperialistic nation others will play fair. I suspect he is in for a rude awakening but that is not the same as saying America is without guilt. We have behaved selfishly with regard to the rest of the world and we do need to repent (and not just for the sin of abortion). My fear of the other option is that Senator McCain is not as much of a Maverick or a reformer as I would like to believe. He did after all vote for the pork-filled bailout bill with not so much as an apology.

Anthony D. Rogers wrote:

Your idea of government is jaded and fundamentally wrong. Obama’s plan, while perhaps being socialistic in nature, is not a redistribution of wealth as such. It is, rather, an effort to help those who are struggling and less fortunate. It is comparable to public libraries, which are in place and funded by “the government” (i.e., taxpayers) for the betterment of society. Unless of course you would argue that libraries create less productive librarians, patrons, and information spaces—and somehow punish the successful library user.

If Obama wishes to help those in need so much, let him begin by helping his own brother in Kenya. He says he is his brother’s keeper, but does nothing to accomplish that (unless he can do it with someone else’s funds). He is a total hypocrite and a liar. You can always tell when he’s telling a lie (No, I’m not going to say it’s because his lips are moving) since he prefaces it with a statement such as “I’ve always maintained …” then changes what he previously said.

The biggest problem with Obama, however, is that he trashes the Constitution (though this has been an ongoing problem for some time). Nowhere in the Constitution with there be found an authorization for such programs as he wishes to institute. There are certain clearly delineated powers of the Federal Government

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To attempt to claim that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” a la Algorilla (Al Gore, for those in Rio Linda) is to state that the Constitution means whatever we wish for it to mean so that it no longer serves as a protection of citizens’ rights.

Obama claims to be a Constitutional lawyer, but he apparently has absolutely no understanding of the document. If he is elected, I suppose we will soon all be wearing conical hats and standing out in the fields calf-deep in water planting and harvesting rice.

Chad and BritPhil
No hard feelings. Thanks for the apology. This kind of topic always brings out strong feelings on all sides. Truth be known, due to our flawed human condition, there is no perfect government.

Chad – no matter which side you are on, we always feel like we need to prove ourselves. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve talked with Democrats who basically laugh at me with scorn – they can’t even believe I would be consider being a conservative — obviously, I don’t care about anyone but myself and lack a brain. So your experience goes both ways. Thanks again for your apology. I really do appreciate it.

BritPhil….it’d be interesting to hang out and shoot the breeze …..but for the record, although I often wear pants, I’m not a guy

From the Balcony,

I apologize if my tone offended you or I came off as inbalanced. Britphil nailed it on the head, though. when he said that as a Democrat/left leaning Christian (although not an Evangelical) there is a need to “prove” yourself. Many people I work with are virulent Republicans that subscribe to the particular Limbaugh-Hannity version of conservatism, so for quite a while I’d hear daily (usually good naturedly) that “real Americans don’t believe x, y, z” or something to that effect, but as you can understand that sort of thing gets annoying quickly and more often than not is spoken in truth.

So once again I apologize and will attempt to temper any further remarks.

ChadS

1. ” any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”

From The Balcony. I’ve just read an insightful blog from the BBC’s Economics/Business Editor, reflecting on the situation this side of the pond.

National Savings Bank in the UK have been overwhelmed by calls from anxious savers wanting to lend their money to HM Treasury rather than keep it in a high street bank. And there’s also been such a rush to place deposits in taxpayer-owned Northern Rock that it’s had to suspend its more attractive products and is turning money away”

It could be argued Webster’s first definition of socialism may be about to make a resurgence in that we may be on the beginning of a return road worldwide to a more collectivised world economy than previously. Or bizarrely, we could see s economieswhich were previously overwelmingly capitalist becoming more collectivised in part whereas those that were previously very collectivised (ie Russia, China etc opening up more to market forces. Very interesting times ahead!

A lot of this stuff is about confidence and it would appear that over here in Europe, consumer confidence in the free market is beginning to plummet , with many people/bank customers becoming of the opininon that it was the free market econiomy which got uas into this mess but is a mechanism which does not have the ability to help us climb out of it.

Hi From The Balcony

I know what you mean about the trying to be balanced bit. I entered this discussion trying to rationally reflect/assess/pull together the many various strands of the debate and got slaughtered in some quarters, some of it more than justified because of the length of my post, but underneath the surface I felt some of it may have been due to an attempt to be fair and balanced.

The “leap” that I was referring to was in assuming that because I do not vote Republican I must by nature be Socialist. We all attempt to apply such labels all too easily. To nail my colours completely to the mast, I appreciate that over Stateside, politics operates within a strongly two party system, but here in the UK we have an established three party system. It is true to say that I used to vote for the Labour Party, but I no longer do so, I vote for the more centrist party of the three, partly because I believe that Labour (ie Democrats) have veered far too much to the right during their time in office. I now feel that they have completely lost touch with many ordinary people and have also somehow, unbeleivably managed to preside during the last 10 years over a widening of the gap between the richest and the poorest in the UK. I would also like to say that if a genuine form of caring Conservatism was on offer, (ie consisting of substance and depth, as well as style) and they were the best policies available, I would be willing to consider voting for them.

I understand that you are in favour of government intervention on the levying of taxes for essential needs, which is the “limited role” of government/the state, but I would really like is what to hear what you think of the billions upon billions of dollars of the money which has been levied on the taxpayer which is now being being used to bail out the failings of the capitalist system/free market mecahnism so beloved by conservative Republicans. That is what I was alluding to when I referred to certain omissions/silence. The issue before us at present is not about the philosophical/theological issues surrounding raising taxes, but what those taxes are being used for practically, ie not to provide efficient infrastructure and welfare services, but to use the taxable income of ordinary American citizens to prop up the failings of the capitalist free market approach.

I heard a very interesting debate yesterday on a BBC Current affairs programme, where the comment was made that it was ironic that with the current trend towards “socialisation” of the larger financial markets currently taking place in the USA, that there could be a case made that the leading successful captialist economies in the world at the moment are Russia and China and not the USA! Ouch..I guess that might have hurt just a tad! Countries that were not so long ago members of the so-called “axis of evil” having more successful/captialist-leaning economies than the USA!

What I wholehaertedly believe is, that as man made constructs both Capitalism and Socialism are fundamentally flawed. I would contend that there is a way forward which harnesses the best of both worlds. I would argue that the Scandinavian models seek to incorporate this most appropriately, successfully achieving a decent standard of living all round whilst levy relatively high levels of taxation to pay for which are widely agreed to be the most effective welfare services around.

Also, it would be interesting if we could have the Webster definition on Capitalism to widen the discussion, which has been conspicuous by its absence in the debate so far. With regard to being “defensive”, I do not wish to be, or iindeed like to be, but sometimes there is a feeling that you are something of an “inferior species” in evangelical circles if you are not both an evangelcial and a Republican. I would say that that is primarily more of an American issue, as it is a bit less pronounced here in the UK. Although I understand you reaction to the tone of Chad’s comments, and maybe to a lesser extent, my tonealso , I also understand and share Chad’s frustration, as I guess as an American (which I am assuming he is), he frequently feels he has to “prove/defend” himself as a Democrat-leaning evangelical.

What I find most interesting about this whole thing is the way it is going to be resolved. Many commentators are agreeing that it the main reason why it was easier to pass the revised Bill through Senate last night was that only one third of Senators are up for-relection next month, whereas the all the seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs in the forthcoming election. It appears that many of these politicians are thinking of their own position as much as the welfare of the USA, which is the primary reason they were voted in by the electorate. If that is the case then I hope the American electorate electorate see sense and replace them as quickly as possibly at the earliest opportunity ie at the election next month. I also notice that one of the reasons why the vote got through the Senate was because of a tax sweetener being offered to business to cushion the blow. Whether it gets rthrough when it returns to the House of Representatives for ratification remains to be seen, but my guess is that those who were/still are opposed will gradually begin to pull back from the brink and it will get though on a narrow majority, after which, hopefully some semblance of normality/sanity will prevail once more.

For the record From The Balcony, I would like to conclude that I do appreciate your attempts to be balanced and I still feel you would be a good guy to shoot the breeze with. The same goes for Chad by the way.

BritPhil
Haven’t made a leap at all. Your previous email was rather defensive for your position….thus I responded. I didn’t “conveniently” leave anything out. You asserted that the Democratic party is not socialist in nature. I disagree. I believe it is rapidly moving towards socialism at a fast pace.

I’m sorry what I say bugs you – I said it in a very nice, honest way. And you are incorrect. I never said I was wary of state intervention of any sort. You must have read that into my email. My email was simple — I gave you a definition from a dictionary.

Had you read one of my previous emails (which you told me you had…) you would have easily seen that I said that it is necessary to allow the state/government to manage and collect taxes for essential needs — not frivolous or non-essential ones. But perhaps you skimmed over that. I agree that any system needs to be checked. Capitalism included.

I would disagree with Chad. I do believe that when we raise taxes an excessive amount on one set of people and not another – it basically is a redistribution of wealth. The statistics are clear for anyone to research.

Chad, your reaction to a mere definition given by Webster is a little extreme. I used that definition to try to kindly explain to BritPhil why people like me are leery of socialistic ideas and higher taxes. It’s that simple. You turned my comment into something it wasn’t. I never advocated that the state wither away, as I mention above to BritPhil above.

When the name calling starts, Chad – (calling me and others who think more conservatively than you do ‘communists’), it’s time to stop belaboring any rational conversation.

Gee – you try to be nice and balanced….and look where it gets you….guess I should have expected this based on what I see on TV every single day…..

From the Balcony says: “While #2a hasn’t happened yet in its fullness, today’s news makes you wonder if it won’t in the future. #1 is already in progress within the democratic party – the redistribution of wealth; government administration of production and distribution.”

To imply that the Democratic Platform is socialistic is to completely misunderstand and misapply the term “Socialism.” If anything you need to bone up on your Marxist theory to understand what is meant by concepts like redistrubution of wealth and administration of production and distribution.

Raising taxes or allowing Bush’s tax cuts to expire is not a “redistribution of wealth.” Marxist theory says that during the socialist transition to a communist society wealth would be redistributed by a highly regressive tax structure that would basically be a seizure by the state (before it disappeared) of any excess wealth, money, land and property. Despite all the carping about taxes in the US nobody has seen tax rates or a tax policy that regressive in this country.

If by administration of production and distribution you mean regulations then once again you are off by a country mile. In a communist society the state, at least initially, would control the very means of production. This would be far different than any thing like farm subsidies etc. It would be ownership of all factories etc. by the state for furtherment and the betterment of the communist society. That simply does not exist in Democratic Party thought and to suggest it does in disengenous.

From the Balcony says: “To think that socialism is a transition to communism might be a better way for you to understand why many of us advocate a much freer democracy without so much governmental regulation.”

Are you advocating that the “state wither away.” Who’s the real communist here?

ChadS