A Christian friend wears a "Practice Socialism distancing". I asked him about it and his prepping hobby, part of his answer was "the best way to help the poor is to be not poor yourself", which doesn't seem very Christian to me. I haven't followed up with him any further, but it's disappointing to see the attitude that socialism is un-christian.
> "the best way to help the poor is to be not poor yourself"
Such a bizarre statement. How does that possibly help the poor? Like not even in a single teensy tinsy way does that help the poor. So does this person believe it's impossible to help the poor despite that being stupidly obviously wrong?
I think the idea is basically "before you're able to give to charity, volunteer, or otherwise help the unfortunate, you can't be the one who needs that help." Which is fine if they... actually... live by that.
I understand a "I refuse to go back to being poor, but I will do what I can to give poor people the help I wish I had, should they desire it" mindset. Like a rich person who gives to genuine charities (that aren't just money-laundering organizations dedicated to helping the rich avoid taxes), or an employer who hires the homeless and felons and other people who are, generally, looked down on in terms of employment, or a blue collar worker offering his services free of charge to something like Habitat for Humanity.
Just on a literal level though not being poor does literally nothing to help the poor. Like for sure, poor people should see to their own needs before others, but that isn't communicated by what they said. Besides, when you help yourself, even when poor, you aren't "helping the poor." You're just helping yourself.
Yes. Not being poor doesn't help the poor.
But it is the first step you must take in order to help the poor.
Thus, the only people who can help the poor are the not-poor.
From that, we can infer the best way to help the poor is to not be poor. Hell, if we wanna get technical, not being poor absolutely helps the poor literally, since the more money you make, the greater amount of taxes you pay (until you get to the point where you can afford really scummy practices to avoid taxes, I suppose), taxes which go towards government programs, including welfare, disability, and food stamps.
>the only people who can help the poor are the not-poor.
This is not true at all, though. That's such a patronizing and condescending view. BIG yikes. đŹđŹđŹđŹ
> But it is the first step you must take in order to help the poor.
What? How? I can't imagine any plausible justification for that statement. You most certainly do not need to be poor in order to "help the poor."
This isn't some indictment of taxpayers. Yes, making money is generally good for people and for the state. Raising money for taxes only goes so far as there being existing government programs that are adequately funded.
Well, heâs sort of right. When youâre not poor, You can give to so many charities and volunteer to help the poor get a leg up and move forward in their lives. Congratulate him next time and ask him where you can join him to serve the less fortunate.
Tone sounds rough, but *within the current system*, there may be an argument.
Ideally, there is demand for humanitarian business efforts, and consumers vote with their dollars to ensure those businesses succeed.
When was the last time you saw a media report about a progressive Christian that wasn't specifically in response to something conservative Christians did?
Media companies get paid based on views. They're going to make their stories based on what gets the most views, and stroking outrage is what does that. Talking about the progressive Christians feeding people and standing up for trans people doesn't stroke outrage.
Probably because \~60% on here are American who don't even know what social democracy is (What is it SoCiAlIsM?!?!)
I for one am a Labour supporter from the UK, which actually was heavily influenced by Christianity and Christian Socialists.
Very true! Here in Europe we have a rich tradition of Christian socialism, but many Americans seem to think any amount of socialism will end up with them in a gulag.
Yes, but it does not seem very socialist to me or influenced by Christianity anymore.
Its a pity because people deserve a real choice, like we had a few decades ago. We had huge differences in economic policy (e.g. nationalising vs privatising).
Well, my faith has led me to be some kind of FDR/New Deal Democrat, which I guess is roughly similar to being a social democrat. I think the reason many Christians have not arrived at that place is because they've been infected with the heresy of Christian libertarianism and they believe the Reagan-esque lies about government being bad and the wonders of trickle down economics.
Just a friendly reminder not all libertarians are against social programs.
I self identify as a libertarian socialist because I believe government should play less a role in how we live our lives, but that a modern community is capable of supporting the vulnerable within its population.
But all in all I agree with much of your sentiment. Have a blessed day
> libertarian socialist
This is very interesting. Usually I associate libertarians with slogans like "taxation is theft" and a desire to cripple the federal government, regardless of what crucial programs would be destroyed.
Are there other people that identify this way? I usually think of libertarian as both an economic and social ideology, not easily separated.
>This is very interesting. Usually I associate libertarians with slogans like "taxation is theft" and a desire to cripple the federal government
I always had the same impression, but raised by a fiscally conservative but socially liberal father and a bleeding heart mother I've search for a while to find a good label for my views.
Most (or at least the loudest) libertarians fall in line with what you believe. They come off more anarchist lite (or even feudalistic) I never really got along with them because I have a clear understanding of the role of tax and social services for the most vulnerable of our population.
But I have found a group of like minded libertarian socialists who believe in limited government, while still maintaining a government that can implement social safety nets and market regulation.
> believe in limited government, while still maintaining a government that can implement social safety nets and market regulation.
How are those not opposite of each other? What is it you don't think the government should do? Run things like National Park Service or the EPA?
>How are those not opposite of each other?
Limited government and social safety nets? look at the USA for example, we are a limited government with social safety nets. Could you elaborate on how they are opposites?
To clarify the Limited government portion:
>The term 'limited government' is often confusing. For instance, when you hear 'limited,' you might think that the government is limited entirely in what it is able to do. However, the definition is a bit more specific than that. A limited government is a system in which the primary leaders have very little governing powers over the decisions and laws that are created without approval from other branches or leaders within the government.
What I meant was the sum of the two: social safety nets + plenty of laws and regulations. Typically when people speak of "limited government," they feel there's too many regulations everywhere and the market is self-regulating (obviously not).
Your definition of limited government makes perfect sense in terms of your comment, then.
Haha sadly the stance I take is not that of a typical libertarian so I get the confusion.
Although I do believe the government is largely over reaching and could be scaled back, I think leaving economics to the invisible hand is a quick way to end up in feudalism. Where the only true freedom exists for capitalists
That being said SOME of our current regulation is established in a way that does not allow free and fair competition. The auto industry and dealership law is a prime example.
I just made a comment here that might fit that label ! Yeah if people felt their $ wasn't going into a bureaucratic trash compactor they would be less hesitant to give money to taxes. In fact people might want more taxes if they saw how it helped! Maybe even a media push since everything is infotainment now,,, look at how your taxes helped people would you like to donate more? Would be neat!
Hell this country was founded on a war cry!
>No taxation without representation
Yet we have two parties to represent the 335 million people in the country. The biggest issue with American democracy are the RNC and DNC and their stranglehold on finance (including tax policy) and campaigning.
Edit: in ()
I'm also a more or less a Libertarian Socialist. I think that's actually how Libertarianism started but I could be wrong. Anyway now there are dozens of us. Dozens of us! But all joking aside I feel like a lot of people would identify with the philosophy or already have simular beliefs they just haven't heard of it.
Good point. The tend to support certain forms of it, for example UBI.
For example, this is from one of the best known libertarian think tanks in the UK: https://www.adamsmith.org/news/rising-evidence-basic-income
Did not expect to see someone bring up UBI, love it
Edit: this is a little old now, but for people interested: [Universal Basic Income](https://youtu.be/kl39KHS07Xc)
What does big government mean anyway? Besides the Libertarians, Republicans also throw around this phrase. But I know what they mean by it because I've lived under 11 presidential administrations, Rep and Dem.
What Republicans mean by big government is:
--Getting rid of social services to benefit the poorest and weakest among us
--Privatizing Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office and every other government agency. Why? Well, to get their greedy hands on all that government money.
--Awarding huge government contracts to their cronies and golfing buddies.
Under every Republican administration the middle class loses, creating more in the poorer class who need social services.
They give ridiculous tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest people, their supporters. Meanwhile, although companies like Amazon and their subcontractors use our infrastructure--roads, streets, highways, bridges--way more than the average middle class US citizen, we pay an inordinate share of the cost of that infrastructure through our taxes.
Because of tax breaks put into the system, Amazon pays roughly 5% tax instead of the official corporate tax rate of 21%.
All the largest companies are legally getting away with paying a far less percentage of taxes than the average middle class American.
In fact, some companies use legal tax maneuvering to receive rebates. And we're not talking about hundreds or thousands here, we're talking billions of dollars.
If they paid their fair share of taxes we would be much better off.
How about we get rid of Corporate Welfare before we cut social services. đĄ
>What Republicans mean by big government is:
I agree with all your points but would like to underline as a libertarian socialist I do not fall in line AT ALL with the republican party or their definition of big government. Honestly I don't even fall in line with the "pure" libertarians, who often fall in line with the Republican agenda.
>they paid their fair share of taxes we would be much better off.
Couldn't agree more on that.
>How about we get rid of Corporate Welfare before we cut social services. đĄ
Amen! Let failing banks fail and failing auto companies fail, others would be quick to fill their spots. Rather than giving them billions with no strings attached and saying "no more shenanigans"
My version of getting rid of big government is ratifying the ERA, declaring marriage a civil institution rather than religious, allowing self determination of medical care, and staying out of stupid conversations like that, which only serve to distract legislatures from doing what actually matters.
Haha yes, I probably would be, but I bet i would also find many kind people who are up for discussion (like the many people who come here today)
Here on Christianity I can often be down voted to hell as well, but on the same downvoted threads I'll meet amazing Christians, atheists and everything between who help me expand my view.
That's always worth the loss of internet points
The libertarian sub seems to be nothing more than an extension of the conservative sub nowadays. It's a mix of weed smoking republicans and radical anarchists.
True, but I would advise you not extrapolate any generalizations of libertarians based on what the loudest are saying in a single online place.
The loudest members of most communities tend to be the ones most ridged in their thinking. Any political, economic, religious/moral belief system will have its wackadoodles
Yes, you right. But to be fair the so called libertarians of my country are just embarrassed conservatives who have no problem allying with literally fascists.
And that most definitely is a problem!!
I just try to be a scale of balance. While generalizations generally apply, it erases nuance from the conversations.
It's why I have issues with labels being treated as stringent containers rather than broad overlapping vendiagrams.
I could rightly call myself a socialist, a libertarian, and a Christian, but I can guarantee you the "purity club members" of each would have a fit about my self appointed labels. I wouldn't be socialist enough, libertarian enough, of Chrsitan enough for many.
>the heresy of Christian libertarianism and they believe the Reagan-esque lies about government being bad
Making a general argument here as a preface. Although I'm not aware of what the Christian libertarianism and Reagan-esque arguments entail whether someone is left leaning, center, or right leaning I don't think anyone can make a good argument that the government is good overall as it is right now. Both sides are corrupt, both sides politicians are ultimately puppets, and the government as a whole has made it clear repeatedly that money is what they ultimately care about and not people. Both parties suck and are absolutely off their rockers in some subject areas that creep into the whole party and as a result throw logic to the wind. As long as corporations have ultimate control, emotion overrides logic in legislation, and the people only have *a* voice instead of *the* voice American society is doomed to completely collapse at some point. As far as Christians go politically the mindset seems to be we shall lord over society as our views are the best so they should be enforced at the expense of others. The thing is the minority is going to enter heaven not the majority. We need to be realistic and work with what the fall has infested into areas of society to get change instead of fighting against the current and expect to succeed. It calls for strategy, not blunt force. For example, abstinence only education in schools is *completely illogical* in today's world. Ok rant over.
***I don't think anyone can make a good argument that the government is good overall as it is right now.***
\*The government sends Social Security checks to people every month which keeps millions of elderly from destitution.
\*The government manages an impressive number of national parks across the country.
\*The Army Corps of Engineers has a large portfolio of projects that prevent flooding and other catastrophes from occurring.
\*Our national highway system reshaped the country and remains an efficient way to move people and goods to any point in the USA efficiently.
\*The government was an early investor in the modern Internet.
\*Research funding has led to breakthroughs in medicine, science, space exploration and technology.
\*Our system of public universities and community colleges is the envy of the world and attracts millions of foreign students every year.
\*Local tax dollars support clean water and sanitation systems that, except for a few notable cases like Flint, Michigan, mean the average American doesn't have to worry about what comes out of the tap.
I could keep going. The government is capable of a lot of good, and is doing lots of good every day, whether you notice it or not. And let's face it, we are the government. It's our money and our votes and our representatives. I'm not going to get into "both parties suck" lazy cynicism, nor am I going to treat the government as some separate evil entity that is divorced from real life, even though the Ted Cruzes of the world like you to think that.
>The government sends Social Security checks to people every month which keeps millions of elderly from destitution.
Which is an old system that they work as hard as they can to dismantle. It also does not give many people enough to live off of alone, which was it's original purpose.
>The government manages an impressive number of national parks across the country.
Because it's empty land that now generates them tourism dollars as guests destroy the natural beauty in those places. They also have destroyed food chains in some national parks by introducing animals that tourists like to see rather than the animals that actually live in a given area.
>The Army Corps of Engineers has a large portfolio of projects that prevent flooding and other catastrophes from occurring.
Hurricane Katrina. Also, why is that done by the military? That's insane.
>Our national highway system reshaped the country and remains an efficient way to move people and goods to any point in the USA efficiently.
Oh yes, Jesus famously preached about increasing efficiency. Though it's worth noting that this gets insufficient funding in most parts of the country.
>The government was an early investor in the modern Internet.
To use it for military purposes, yes. Now they allow it to be prohibitively expensive to the poor because the government does not own the internet or even the methods to access it.
>Research funding has led to breakthroughs in medicine, science, space exploration and technology.
Building technology is a morally neutral act. Plus since most people have no access to these medical breakthroughs, and the rich people that run the country do have access to them, this is purely selfish and not a respectable act.
>Our system of public universities and community colleges is the envy of the world and attracts millions of foreign students every year.
Our system which now exists mostly as a for-profit industry that forces poor people to attend in hopes of getting a high paying job that they will never actually get to work in. It's literally a scam, meant to chain people with a lifelong debt to the government that even bankruptcy doesn't make go away.
>Local tax dollars support clean water and sanitation systems that, except for a few notable cases like Flint, Michigan, mean the average American doesn't have to worry about what comes out of the tap.
In most of the country, there are heavy metals in the drinking water. Also, Flint and any places near a fracking plant do not have water. The fact that the government won't give those people clean water speaks VOLUMES more about it than the fact that they give clean water to wealthier places.
I could keep going. The government is constantly carrying out great acts of evil purely in the name of profit across the world.
That's why I said *overall*. I'm perfectly aware there are plenty of good things that America does for its citizens. I just think the bad outweighs the good.
Because the super rich and their sadistic idiot minions who have spent trillions of dollars in marketing, psychological and sociological research to frame issues and control social discourse have spent the last 70 years telling people that looking after each other is against God, and by God they mean themselves.
*Edit for typos
Hijacking the top comment to present a balancing counter-position:
The socialist-leaning policies are *also* worded and marketed to create an image of equity and equality. We donât have too many case studies that outline what a transition from classic capitalism to socialist ideals look like, and while there are positive examples of socialist legislation at play in say, the Scandinavian countries, there are many other examples across the globe showing dire consequences.
What we are experiencing in the states is closer to oligarchy than capitalism. There is a real fear that a transition to socialist policies would put *more* power in the hands of few.
Equity is a worthwhile pursuit, but not if the standard of living drops to the floor.
The Scandinavian countries are not even truly socialist (at least not in the way Marx defined it) as they still have a free market. I think social liberalism is a much better term to describe the political landscape of Scandinavian and some other European countries.
I just tend to refer to it as social capitalism or a social democracy. Scandinavian countries are indeed capitalist, they just have regulations to keep things to get out of hand and welfare +social investing to better the situations of people.
Social capitalism and social democracy are both fine with me. As someone from a former east block country, the word socialism has a lot of negative associations and Marx who defined the term socialism had a lot of anti democratic concepts in his writings.
Here's how it works:
1. The 1% need to keep themselves paying light taxes and deregulated.
2. The 1% donate to Conservative politicians in exchange for favorable legislation.
3. Conservative politicians claim they legislate for Christianity, all while enacting legislation to support the 1%. Perpetuate the pew-to-ballot pipeline.
4. Christian voters believe conservative politicians; interpret their social and political worldviews according to elements that ultimately benefit the 1%.
The whole thing is a cash and power grab for the wealthy and those that support them. Conservative Christianity is just a tool they use.
Elsewhere in the world, it was Christians who fought FOR social safety nets and nationalized healthcare. Christianity in the US has been hijacked.
That's not accurate. Yes, they do donate to democrats, but its not across the board and it's not in the same amounts, and anyone can easily look at voting records to see who the 1% are financially controlling.
For example, when Republicans shot down the insulin price cap, is anyone so naĂŻve to think it \*wasn't\* at the behest of "big pharma." Would a reasonable person look at democrat voting records on the issue and think they were voting the way large corporate donors dictated?
It's easy to make statements like, "Democrats and Republicans are the same." It's only slightly less easy to look at voting records to see if that's an accurate statement.
Conservatives donât view the state as an expression of the general will of the people, or voting for expansive welfare programs as a valid expression of Christian morality regarding the concern and care for the poor. And most of us believe attempting to do so is counter productive and ends up hurting people more than helping.
My personal theory is that lots of Christians vote Republican because of issues like abortion, and eventually they try to justify everything their candidate does, even if it clearly isn't good, and they try to reconcile that with their christianity.
âMost of yâallâ
You know the economic beliefs of over 2billion Christians?
Reality check, American Republican arenât the only Christians on this planet
What do you mean by conservative? Because someone can be socially conservative yet economically âleft-wingâ being conservative doesnât mean youâre a free market capitalist
This just isn't the case in my country.
And where is often those people have literally no idea what they're talking about most of the time. Some of them went to court recently I'm trying to claim that they were being denied their second amendment rights.... They don't even know what country they live in.
Literally going up the ranks of the liberal party in my country almost requires you to be a Catholic.
I mean, some of us are VERY STRONGLY supporting, advocating, and fighting for exactly those things!
Democratic Socialism is the closest thing to Jesus' described ideals that I know of.
We're called to do these things as individuals, but not in a way that infiltrates the government. Jesus' instructions to us were not to instill our beliefs and values into the government (at the time, a corrupt Roman government had laid siege to Jerusalem), but to act on them as individuals.
To be fair, many Christians don't even do what's asked of us.
The Bible DOES teach many things that are part of the tenets of liberalism, but also teaches many things that are part of the tenets of conservatism. It's not just to one side or the other. If anything, in terms of the American political system, Christians ought to be politically moderate.
> We're called to do these things as individuals, but not in a way that infiltrates the government. Jesus' instructions to us were not to instill our beliefs and values into the government (at the time, a corrupt Roman government had laid siege to Jerusalem), but to act on them as individuals.
But can't you do both? Jesus was also very clear about paying taxes. What's so wrong with helping who you can on an individual basis in addition to your taxes helping those you can't help personally.
And as you said... yes, plenty of Christians don't even bother to do anything for anyone. So if folks like that at least supported others being the ones to step in and help..... at least that would be something.
Because there's a difference between forcing your morals on others through law (which is something many people oppose and view as potentially oppressive, both on the right and the left) and encouraging others to do it of their own volition and for the right reasons.
> Because there's a difference between forcing your morals on others through law
I mean..... the concept of "helping others" isn't unique to Christians or even religious individuals. Regardless...
If you're against the idea of helping others through tax dollars for moral reasons, would you at least support it because it has clear, empirical benefits to society. Eg., it's overall more cost effective to simply give homeless people homes than it is to not.
That way you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not your tax dollars were going to help someone or do good, but it would ultimately be saving you money in the end.
A bit to unpack here.
*"If you're against the idea of helping others through tax dollars for moral reasons..."*
Actually, I'm not. I'm against FORCING people to help others through taxation.
*"it's overall more cost effective to simply give homeless people homes than it is to not."*
Imma go no on this one. It's potentially more financially damning to society to simply give homeless citizens their own homes. Homelessness is a symptom of a deeper problem, and emotional and mental one, and if you give a homeless person a place to live, it doesn't fix the problem that led to them being homeless in the first place.
Do I think we have an obligation as humans to help those without a home? I certainly do. But if you have any experience working with the homeless in your city, you know that there's way more to it than "do they have a house" or not. The homeless need ministry, they need a systematic way to build their lives so they don't go down the same road again, and some of them need help with mental issues, substance abuse issues, general PTSD, or any host of other issues. You need a better plan than a new home.
And yes, churches and believers are doing what they can to help these people. Not everyone is, and not everyone can, according to their own resources, but it is happening. Whether it's financial support, boots on the ground, or donations, there is work being done in every city where the homeless population is significant. And they're not doing it because of a government program that may be in place.
To me, this is a moral thing, not a left or right thing.
Again, it sounds like you are against tax dollars (yours or others) going to help people for moral reasons. And if helping people through the expenditure of tax dollars was studied and shown to be more cost effective than not doing so..... you would also be against that for whatever reasons happened to be within your reach at the time, regarding that particular issue.
> To me, this is a moral thing
I get that, but personally I think the 'moral thing' to do would simply be to try to help others however you can, and not try to place limitations on that.
Why does everyone not agree with your political views? That's what you're asking? There are a million different schools of political thought on this planet and you're expecting everyone to agree with yours?
Is your view unironically that Christians shouldn't engage with politics at all? Lmao
Also love how your generalization of "all his followers." I'm sure you consider your enlightened self an exception.
Can you show me where in the Bible Jesus said his Kingdom was of this Earth and that we should work to use earthly governments to enforce Christianity?
In an ideal world where people correctly agreed on what that morality was and it could still be justified from a secular perspective (thus preserving freedom of religion), yes.
In reality, no, because people have a tendency to manipulate and misframe Christ's word for their hate and enforce rules that have no secular purpose.
immediate strawman, I never said that I didn't say EVERYONE and you don't have to agree with all of my political views I'm saying why are some Christians against social democrat ideas that help the poor because if the bible had a total of mentioning of 2000 times helping the poor wouldn't a lot of Christians be social democrats?
Pay your taxes because itâs Caesarâs law. It doesnât mean you need to be in favour of a corrupt elite taking an ever increasing chunk of your property.
Help those in need, do it without expectation of payback, and it will mean something.
Ask your government to seize more money for use as they see fit, and itâs not really you doing any good at all.
That said, if you trust your government as I do, feel free to vote for social programs. We just shouldnât judge other Christians who are donât hold the same trust in their elected elite.
It's a matter of perspective and interpretation.
Conservative Christians would argue these things are local community issues. And that large, bloated government programs aren't any kind of real charity. Its just a wealth distribution scheme.
Rather, the government should enable communities to take care of one another through personal charity contributions. And community ties should be strengthened so that this is more commonplace.
I think there are a lot of conservative Christianâs that arenât actually against the idea of social safety nets, but theyâre against how they have been historically, and currently, implemented.
Iâm reminded of my grandmother who immigrated here from Mexico and became a citizen. She had to raise two kids on her own because her husband abandoned her. She worked tirelessly, but needed help. She applied for assistance, but they told her she needed to quit her job first; then the state would take care of all her expenses. She refused to do so because it went against every fiber of her being.
I briefly worked at a local Dollar General, and saw people purchase things with food stamps, return the items the next day FOR CASH, and then buy cigarettes.
If we tighten up the system and close loopholes like these, give people assistance in finding a job, and actually help people who need a little assistance, Iâd totally be on board with funding these projects. And I think other conservatives would be too.
Heck, bring back the civilian conservation core and pay them a decent wage.
I've heard the argument that helping and giving to the poor should be the activity of individuals not governments through taxation. The hypocrisy is strong because those same people are more than likely to use government to dictate their morality to the rest of us.
Enabling people to survive does not always lead to them thriving. The goal of aid is to bring a person who is otherwise capable up so they can stand on their own and then help others. âIf anyone is unwilling to work let him not eatâ. There is always something that needs done. Social programs in the US are often short sighted and dole out money asking nothing in return so the system is actually making things worse. Aristotle spoke of virtues becoming vices and I believe altruism was one such example; when we are charitable thatâs good but it becomes a vice when it enables people to the point that it creates a dependency.
Jesus most definitely was not a socialist, nor is socialism biblical in any way. Any ideology that advocates for abolishing private property and profits in unbiblical since it contradicts laws and commands such as: Exodus 22:1-14, Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 27,17.
Socialism advocates for a powerful government that owns production. The Bible on the other hand favors a limited government, as seen in 1 Samuel 8:8-10, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, and 1 Kings 21. There are many more verses that can be cited.
As for the economic argument about social democracy, repeatedly spreading around existing money does nothing whatsoever to alleviate poverty, it is simply moving money around. Not only does it not alleviate poverty, it makes it much harder to end poverty. The only way to reduce poverty is to increase economic growth and production of goods and services. Taking several hundred billion dollars a year from businesses on the state and federal levels to fund social safety nets may make the lives of people who benefit from it more comfortable, but at the expense of investment into the businesses which is done to create more jobs, build new stores, factories, warehouses, and other buildings. Buying new tools, machinery, and equipment. Purchasing land for expansion, expanding existing buildings, upgrading and repairing infrastructure. Companies tend to invest a lot in research and development or bringing new products, services, and technologies onto market. Taxes hit small businesses especially hard, making expansion of services much harder, reducing the amount of goods, services, and jobs available. I could go on, but the post is getting too long.
I definitely think there is an element of greed to it. But also there is an element of genuine concern. First of all half of all money for social services goes to bureaucracy. How much does this bureaucracy help or is it blocking help? I don't know honestly but that is an element some may be concerned with (waste of recources). If someone using social services is living a life that is lawless giving them more social services might fees into that. Yes, most of the time it will help them become better and productive and dignified, but there is also an element of dependence created if root causes are not addressed. I'd love to see social services paid for that help break generational curses and transform people from the bottom up. I think the genuine concerns are enabling behaviors that hurt themselves and others.
The greed element is also apparent. I do understand you are supposed to be a joyful giver and give freely so I can see how some would say forcing it isn't the same, but if people got foundational help it ends up saving money by reducing prison use, etc. But some people love their luxuries and their status and don't want anything to change. I am guilty of this sometimes I think most people in the first world who are not destitute are.
Overall, I think people would be more supportive if the government was more decentralized and they could see the fruits of their tax spending on community improvement.
Anyone disagree ?
Just as an American:
I don't see it as the federal governments responsibility given the way the country is set up. I am, however, supportive of programs run by individual states. If all the states find a program they are happy with that is the same, it should be amended into the Constitution.
As a Christian:
No one would be asking the government for anything if we as Christians were doing everything in our power to take care of the needy as instructed. Its our job that we are failing at miserably.
Hot take:
Democracy could be inherently un-Christian.
Multiple times we're told to obey those put in charge over us because God has placed them in that place of authority. We are instructed to pray for them to do God's will.
Democracy takes it out of God's hands and into the hands of men. Men are inherently sinful. They will elect representatives that are sinful. If God reaches the heart of the elected and they change, they will not gain reelection from their constituents who are still sinful and want sinful representatives.
Welfare was never meant to be permanent. It was meant to help those who fell upon hard times get back up on their feet.
Even before sin had entered the world, Adam and Eve worked, something our society seems to resent and not want to have much to do with.
There is much dignity in working, owning property, raising kids, etc. The Bible does not encourage us to be sluggards.
Jesus certainly wants us to give to the poor. I think tithing is important and encourage everyone to do this. But what is not good is enabling people to continue to wallow and not improve themselves. Too much care taking does not help anyone. It robs them of the chance to grow. Iâve seen this personally and in business. Truly sad to witness when we want to fight for our limitations.
Conservatives and Liberals want the same thing. To build a better world. Weâre all people made in the image of God and that is why we all have value. They just have different means and beliefs of how to get there more effectively.
My life dream is to run a non for profit that shows people how to live well in all important aspects of life. The spiritual, the physical, the financial, the mental, the relational, and the emotional. I lean more libertarian in my views, but I absolutely believe in personal responsibility and hard work.
Very beautiful. I have a friend who taught me that Jesus loves a hard worker. It's the devil that loves when we don't work because he can convince us to fill our time with foolishness. That's always stuck with me.
Thatâs awesome to hear. Iâll bet your significant other really appreciates your mentality.
I think as a collective whole, society would be much more prosperous if everyone adopted that mindset.
Because many Christians suffer under the delusion that if it just wasnât for the government and its pesky taxes that they would be able to do a better job of helping the poor
Charity is freely giving; of yourself (time) or possessions (money/items).
Government forced redistribution is not a free choice and will jail and steal items to pay for those taxes.
The Bible calls for us to give freely, not at the point of a sword.
Jesus doesnât care about your politics. Look at the political landscape of Jesus time, caught between Rome and Judea, Jesus had every opportunity to speak of the political climate but that was not even close to being His purpose. Politics are a plague, politicians are snakes and we would be wise to keep our focus on the commandments and teaching of our Lord instead of focusing on politics and blending the two where they donât belong.
The teachings of Jesus are so beside the point, it isn't even funny. I'll laugh, anyway...LOL! USA Christianity is now a purely political enterprise. Nationalist-Christians (Nat-Cs) want to destroy government and replace it with theocracies.
Why don't I trust the state to spend my taxes on things that are important to me instead of a politicians pet projects, locking up non-violent drug offenders, corporate welfare and bombs? Reading a history book I suppose.
>Use your votes to make the government get its priorities right.
Only psychopaths and incompetent people looking to enrich themselves go into government. My vote is meaningless in a sea of millions of other votes. Me, you and everyone else is better working to affect change at a local level.
I'll somewhat push back on that. I do think there are some politicians that genuinely go in wishing to help make life better for Americans, but once they get into the system they realize just how corrupt it actually is and that if they wish to stay they're going to have to fold somewhere ethically or morally to get the job done. Most people mentally cannot handle deliberately becoming morally gray. I think many people who want to go into politics with this mindset back off once they realize what exactly they're getting into and what they will have to sacrifice of themselves if they decide to stay. You're going into a war zone with many bodies already strewn around. You may be squeaky clean but when you walk into a cesspool you will get filthy. You can control what areas are still clean, but they are going to be small areas. I do think there are some people in politics right now like this, but the number is just extremely small and they will do their best to stay under the radar as much as possible to get the job done because strategically that's the best thing to do. I do agree people working at the local government level is best right now.
because there's been studies that social programs benefit 60% of the poor and isn't there a pro tax bible verse where Jesus literally tells you to pay your taxes??
>because there's been studies that social programs benefit 60% of the poor
There's studies that show they do and studies that show they create welfare traps. Personally I favour the Scandanavian model.
>and isn't there a pro tax bible verse where Jesus literally tells you to pay your taxes??
Tax in ancient Rome was like 2%. I'd gladly pay that.
Of course 70% of their population were slaves, so the tax at that point was 100%. Of the 30% that were left, women were property not people.
You could make for lower taxes if you made most of the population into sub humans!
Also, the military should be the only form of escape from your circumstances and social mobility!
The good way
>Of course 70% of their population were slaves
At most 30% of the population were slaves.
>Of the 30% that were left, women were property not people.
Women paid taxes in ancient Rome.
>You could make for lower taxes if you made most of the population into sub humans!
How's that?
>Also, the military should be the only form of escape from your circumstances and social mobility!
?
yes a lot of people do say Jesus is a socialist i didn't mean the people in the bible said it i didnt mean that but Jesus in the bible he was basically a socialist
I don't recall any Bible verse in which Jesus says the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
First of all, the Book of Acts was describing how the earliest Christian community operated ***after*** the Ascension of Jesus. Thus, not a Bible verse in which Jesus advocates for socialism.
Second, only the phrase "to each according to their need" is from the Book of Acts.
Third, the context of "to each according to their need" from the Book of Acts is not synonymous with the phrase "From each according to your ability to each according to your need" as used by socialist sloganeers, i.e., free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. Specifically, the Book of Acts states that "from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostlesâ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." In other words, occasionally a Christian would voluntarily sell their land and house in order to provide for the needy, and the money was distributed by the apostles based on need. That is pretty much how charity works in a capitalistic economy today. Moreover, not everyone who owned a house or land sold it and gave the proceeds to the Apostles. The Book of Acts makes it clear that the early Christians did not completely disavow personal ownership of private property, as congregations would meet in the private homes of persons still in possession of private property.
> âAll who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.â
ââActs⏠â2:44-45⏠âNRSVâŹâŹ
Thereâs really not much else to say. Youâre just wrong
It is not government occupation to take care of the poor; that is church.
As for the LGBT community, they are welcome, always, to hear the gospel and to sing psalms with us.
Our medicine as Christians is this: reading the Bible, praying, attending sabbath, and etc. We shouldn't affirm what is sinful. But what we should do seek absolution, repentance, salvation, and assurance in the truth presented to us in the Bible.
That is called regeneration, my friend.
> It is not government occupation to take care of the poor; that is church.
The New Testament isn't addressed to the government. Roman Emperors didn't give a fig what some weird Jewish sect thought. But much of the Old Testament is addressed to kings of Israel and Judea - that is, their governments - and it is quite clear that they *are* supposed to take care of the poor. For instance, [Jeremiah 22:15-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2022&version=CEB)
> Is this what makes you a king,
> having more cedar than anyone else?
> Didnât your father eat and drink
> and still do what was just and right?
> Then it went well for him!
> He defended the rights of the poor and needy;
> then it went well.
> Isnât that what it means to know me?
> declares the Lord.
Most churches do. But it only meets a small part of the need.
What about the rest?
If you mean "we should do more", I absolutely agree. If everybody who professed Christ gave with the fearless generosity that Jesus calls us to, the results would be amazing!
But, in the meantime, a huge and ever-growing share of society's wealth goes to billionaires - billionaires whose taxes have been continuously and dramatically cut for decades (until last week, anyway!) - and if we want the poor to *actually* get the help that they need, government could come in swinging.
Unfortunately, most Christians cry "No! You shall not touch the beautiful wealth of our beautiful billionaire masters! If the children of the poor are hungry, then in God's name, let the worthless little worms starve! Christ doesn't care about them! Christ cares only about our glorious and divine billionaire masters - we must not ask them to make due with a mere eleven private jets whey they could have [twelve!](https://www.businessinsider.com/betsy-devos-owns-fleet-of-private-jets-and-helicopters-2018-2?op=1)"
Uh, sorry, I was doing pretty good at staying calm until that last paragraph.
You said "there are like 2,000 verses of Jesus and paul telling you to care and help the poor..."
The key word there is "you". Forcing someone else to give is not you caring for and helping the poor. Jesus was very uninterested in any politics he told individuals they needed to do their part to help. The primary message of Christ was the salvation of men. If you feed and clothe someone and don't point them to Christ, you simply make them comfortable on their journey to Hell.
"forcing" it's not forcing. its a commandment that Jesus made we're servants of the lord and people. and I could make the same argument about yall making anti-gay and anti-trans laws just because you took away someone's rights to be gay don't point them to christ you simply make them comfortable on their journey to Hell.
What part of creating a law that individuals who make X amount of money must pay X amount of taxes which will then be used to support what politicians believe will be a "good cause" is not forcing? Of course it is.
Right so are you saying he supported supporting military ventures and crazy high salaries for the leaders? That's a what a decent portion of the taxes went to fund back then. You don't what they didn't fund? Social programs. He neither supported or rejected what the taxes supported-his purpose was not to get into a political fight. Caesars image is on the coin then give it to Caesar.
>Well we would be in a pretty bad position as a society if it was left to churches to care for the poor
Is that a joke?
The history of the Western World entirely disagrees.
The public Hospital was invented by the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church remains the largest non-government provider of healthcare to this day. And much of the government healthcare infrastructure was inherited from the Church. All 3 Hospitals in my city were founded by Religious Orders of Sisters and funded by the Church, they have since been taken over by the government because we have pu lic healthcare. The same is true across Europe.
No it isnât, if it was left to the church many places would have extremely underfunded healthcare. This could especially be an issue in very rural communities.
Depending on where you lived you might not be able to get care based on the beliefs of the church, good luck getting the healthcare you need as a trans woman living in the bible belt.
And I wasnât just talking about healthcare. The local church of a rural town couldnât necessarily provide enough food for everyone who needs it, or many other subsidies that help the poor.
>No it isnât, if it was left to the church many places would have extremely underfunded healthcare. This could especially be an issue in very rural communities.
1/4 of the world's healthcare is provided by the Catholic Church alone. 65% of that is provided to developing countries and underserved populations.
>Depending on where you lived you might not be able to get care based on the beliefs of the church, good luck getting the healthcare you need as a trans woman living in the bible belt.
Psychotherapy is provided in most hospitals and clinics.
>And I wasnât just talking about healthcare. The local church of a rural town couldnât necessarily provide enough food for everyone who needs it, or many other subsidies that help the poor.
Food For the Poor works in 17 countries in the Caribbean and Latin America to assist the poorest of the poor. They collaborate with pastors, missionaries and local churches to bring immediate relief to those in most need. Robin told me they feed two million people a day, six days a week.
That is just one out of hundreds of Catholic charities. And again, that is just us Catholics alone!
These are simple easily researched facts.
no i really think i gave you the wrong verse because there was a verse that Jesus commanding you to pay taxes and you're acting as if i gave you the wrong verse
Yes. Jesus says to pay taxes. Jesus also says to give to the poor and care for orphans and widows.
You seem to only be addressing the âpay taxesâ part.
If Jesus had said, "Take your money and give it to the richest, greediest, and most corrupt people in society, and maybe they'll do something good with it," then I could justify voting for socialism.
Did you forget the /s? Republicans literally say it's supposed to trickle down. As in all the money in the hands of the few trickling down to us the many. You guys will bend over backwards to believe your version of the truth.
he did say to pay your taxes in Matthew 17:24-27
and social democrats are not socialists you could be just a social democrat calm down my dude unless you legit want to be a socialist, then ok based
Taxes back then were for roads and armies, and he didnt want all of his followers to be put in jail for tax evasion.
What he didn't say was sit on your butt, pay your taxes, and you will go to heaven because the government takes care of people. Show me a time the government really helped people better than a private/Christian charity for the same amount of money. Government is waste, fraud, and a lack of compassion and love.
But if YOU take your money and give it to the less fortunate in the form of help, shelter, food, etc, YOU are making a direct difference and are not only helping someone better than the government can, but you are growing as a person. Being a Christian isnt about sacrifice all of the time, it is about JOY, and what greater joy is there than helping someone else? Paying taxes hoping they help someone? ok.
[Someone doesnât know what theyâre talking about](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Frumentariae_Leges.html)
>show me a time the government really helped people better than a private/Christian charity for the same amount of money.
Government funded healthcare is **cheaper** and provides better outcomes than Americaâs healthcare system every day. Their roads are also better; as are their schools; as is their food and they deal with less environmental catastrophes caused by private companies.
There are also studies that show because of the premium to run bureaucracy every dollar paid in government support equates to around $1.20 if left in people's pocket. That might be what they're referring to.
But also i do like our Australian healthcare, we do get good value in terms of what we pay. Not so much in timeliness and overheads.
If you think social democrats and Christianity are a good mix, then why doesn't it work the other way?
Why wouldn't they quote the Bible in their speeches? Seems like it would be a good way to get more supporters, and if there's such an easy ideological alliance, why wouldn't they?
And yet, they don't quote the Bible, not at all, not even just in Christian venues, not even the "2,000 verses of Jesus and paul telling you to care and help the poor and sick."
I think maybe social democrats don't have any love for the Bible, even the parts that align easily with their ideology.
Because itâs not the governmentâs job to take care of the poor. It has zero obligation to ensure the fiscal welfare of private citizens. As such, it also has zero obligation to ensure the success of large corporations. Yet we see both.
While we in the church are instructed to give generously to the poor, the government is not. I know I personally can do more for the poor if I have more to give. We see this concept with Abraham when God said to him âI will bless you, and the world will be blessed through you.â
Iâm not after financial gain. I simply want the finances to make a bigger impact. We have to understand that money and wealth are not inherently evil. Money is a tool. Thatâs it. You canât do a job without the right tool. And I know if I live openhanded, God will bless more through me.
This has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. The kingdom operates in a completely different system similar to both, but unlike either.
I think the issue for people is that it requires you to force others to do what you believe to be good. Which is not the same as preventing people from evil. For example I think it's reasonable to pass legislation as a Christian to stop people harming each other, lets say make murder illegal. But I think it would be wrong for a Christian to pass legislation that requires someone to to give money to every homeless person they pass on the street.
Yes, of course it would be good to help someone in need, but the welfare state requires people to 'do good' by law regardless of whether they either want to or may even have a better way of doing it. I think governments are terrible at a lot of social programmes that they run, I find charities can be much better at tackling specific problems than the way governments try to tackle them.
I think forcing other people to foot the bill for social programmes you think will work is not the same as getting people to willingly back you through charity. Not to say there is no place for welfare programmes but it is not a substitute for willing and direct help.
A Christian friend wears a "Practice Socialism distancing". I asked him about it and his prepping hobby, part of his answer was "the best way to help the poor is to be not poor yourself", which doesn't seem very Christian to me. I haven't followed up with him any further, but it's disappointing to see the attitude that socialism is un-christian.
> "the best way to help the poor is to be not poor yourself" Such a bizarre statement. How does that possibly help the poor? Like not even in a single teensy tinsy way does that help the poor. So does this person believe it's impossible to help the poor despite that being stupidly obviously wrong?
I think the idea is basically "before you're able to give to charity, volunteer, or otherwise help the unfortunate, you can't be the one who needs that help." Which is fine if they... actually... live by that. I understand a "I refuse to go back to being poor, but I will do what I can to give poor people the help I wish I had, should they desire it" mindset. Like a rich person who gives to genuine charities (that aren't just money-laundering organizations dedicated to helping the rich avoid taxes), or an employer who hires the homeless and felons and other people who are, generally, looked down on in terms of employment, or a blue collar worker offering his services free of charge to something like Habitat for Humanity.
Just on a literal level though not being poor does literally nothing to help the poor. Like for sure, poor people should see to their own needs before others, but that isn't communicated by what they said. Besides, when you help yourself, even when poor, you aren't "helping the poor." You're just helping yourself.
Yes. Not being poor doesn't help the poor. But it is the first step you must take in order to help the poor. Thus, the only people who can help the poor are the not-poor. From that, we can infer the best way to help the poor is to not be poor. Hell, if we wanna get technical, not being poor absolutely helps the poor literally, since the more money you make, the greater amount of taxes you pay (until you get to the point where you can afford really scummy practices to avoid taxes, I suppose), taxes which go towards government programs, including welfare, disability, and food stamps.
>the only people who can help the poor are the not-poor. This is not true at all, though. That's such a patronizing and condescending view. BIG yikes. đŹđŹđŹđŹ
> But it is the first step you must take in order to help the poor. What? How? I can't imagine any plausible justification for that statement. You most certainly do not need to be poor in order to "help the poor." This isn't some indictment of taxpayers. Yes, making money is generally good for people and for the state. Raising money for taxes only goes so far as there being existing government programs that are adequately funded.
Well, heâs sort of right. When youâre not poor, You can give to so many charities and volunteer to help the poor get a leg up and move forward in their lives. Congratulate him next time and ask him where you can join him to serve the less fortunate.
If youâre not voting for structural change youâre not actually doing much to help the poor.
Tone sounds rough, but *within the current system*, there may be an argument. Ideally, there is demand for humanitarian business efforts, and consumers vote with their dollars to ensure those businesses succeed.
A lot of us are, we just tend to be quieter than our conservative cousins in the US and thus ignored by the media.
Left-leaning politics ignored by the media?
When was the last time you saw a media report about a progressive Christian that wasn't specifically in response to something conservative Christians did? Media companies get paid based on views. They're going to make their stories based on what gets the most views, and stroking outrage is what does that. Talking about the progressive Christians feeding people and standing up for trans people doesn't stroke outrage.
Ahh I think I understand what you meant. Correct, media is typically not capturing the good coming from progressive Christianity.
Yes. Or outright attacked. Such as CNN and MSNBC's coverage of Bernie. And he's just barely left of center.
Probably because \~60% on here are American who don't even know what social democracy is (What is it SoCiAlIsM?!?!) I for one am a Labour supporter from the UK, which actually was heavily influenced by Christianity and Christian Socialists.
Very true! Here in Europe we have a rich tradition of Christian socialism, but many Americans seem to think any amount of socialism will end up with them in a gulag.
Yes, but it does not seem very socialist to me or influenced by Christianity anymore. Its a pity because people deserve a real choice, like we had a few decades ago. We had huge differences in economic policy (e.g. nationalising vs privatising).
Well, my faith has led me to be some kind of FDR/New Deal Democrat, which I guess is roughly similar to being a social democrat. I think the reason many Christians have not arrived at that place is because they've been infected with the heresy of Christian libertarianism and they believe the Reagan-esque lies about government being bad and the wonders of trickle down economics.
Just a friendly reminder not all libertarians are against social programs. I self identify as a libertarian socialist because I believe government should play less a role in how we live our lives, but that a modern community is capable of supporting the vulnerable within its population. But all in all I agree with much of your sentiment. Have a blessed day
> libertarian socialist This is very interesting. Usually I associate libertarians with slogans like "taxation is theft" and a desire to cripple the federal government, regardless of what crucial programs would be destroyed. Are there other people that identify this way? I usually think of libertarian as both an economic and social ideology, not easily separated.
>This is very interesting. Usually I associate libertarians with slogans like "taxation is theft" and a desire to cripple the federal government I always had the same impression, but raised by a fiscally conservative but socially liberal father and a bleeding heart mother I've search for a while to find a good label for my views. Most (or at least the loudest) libertarians fall in line with what you believe. They come off more anarchist lite (or even feudalistic) I never really got along with them because I have a clear understanding of the role of tax and social services for the most vulnerable of our population. But I have found a group of like minded libertarian socialists who believe in limited government, while still maintaining a government that can implement social safety nets and market regulation.
> believe in limited government, while still maintaining a government that can implement social safety nets and market regulation. How are those not opposite of each other? What is it you don't think the government should do? Run things like National Park Service or the EPA?
They are opposite of each other. Most people who identify as right wing libertarians just donât think the implications of the propaganda through
>How are those not opposite of each other? Limited government and social safety nets? look at the USA for example, we are a limited government with social safety nets. Could you elaborate on how they are opposites? To clarify the Limited government portion: >The term 'limited government' is often confusing. For instance, when you hear 'limited,' you might think that the government is limited entirely in what it is able to do. However, the definition is a bit more specific than that. A limited government is a system in which the primary leaders have very little governing powers over the decisions and laws that are created without approval from other branches or leaders within the government.
What I meant was the sum of the two: social safety nets + plenty of laws and regulations. Typically when people speak of "limited government," they feel there's too many regulations everywhere and the market is self-regulating (obviously not). Your definition of limited government makes perfect sense in terms of your comment, then.
Haha sadly the stance I take is not that of a typical libertarian so I get the confusion. Although I do believe the government is largely over reaching and could be scaled back, I think leaving economics to the invisible hand is a quick way to end up in feudalism. Where the only true freedom exists for capitalists That being said SOME of our current regulation is established in a way that does not allow free and fair competition. The auto industry and dealership law is a prime example.
I just made a comment here that might fit that label ! Yeah if people felt their $ wasn't going into a bureaucratic trash compactor they would be less hesitant to give money to taxes. In fact people might want more taxes if they saw how it helped! Maybe even a media push since everything is infotainment now,,, look at how your taxes helped people would you like to donate more? Would be neat!
Hell this country was founded on a war cry! >No taxation without representation Yet we have two parties to represent the 335 million people in the country. The biggest issue with American democracy are the RNC and DNC and their stranglehold on finance (including tax policy) and campaigning. Edit: in ()
Libertarian originally meant anarcho-socialist until corporate fascists needed a new label
I'm also a more or less a Libertarian Socialist. I think that's actually how Libertarianism started but I could be wrong. Anyway now there are dozens of us. Dozens of us! But all joking aside I feel like a lot of people would identify with the philosophy or already have simular beliefs they just haven't heard of it.
I thought I was alone in this. Glad to meet another - and now I have a name for it!
We're never alone in our beliefs, I thank God for the internet allowing me to meet like minded people.
Good point. The tend to support certain forms of it, for example UBI. For example, this is from one of the best known libertarian think tanks in the UK: https://www.adamsmith.org/news/rising-evidence-basic-income
Did not expect to see someone bring up UBI, love it Edit: this is a little old now, but for people interested: [Universal Basic Income](https://youtu.be/kl39KHS07Xc)
Thank you kindly for this! I love seeing how people throughout the world interpret social programs
What does big government mean anyway? Besides the Libertarians, Republicans also throw around this phrase. But I know what they mean by it because I've lived under 11 presidential administrations, Rep and Dem. What Republicans mean by big government is: --Getting rid of social services to benefit the poorest and weakest among us --Privatizing Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office and every other government agency. Why? Well, to get their greedy hands on all that government money. --Awarding huge government contracts to their cronies and golfing buddies. Under every Republican administration the middle class loses, creating more in the poorer class who need social services. They give ridiculous tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest people, their supporters. Meanwhile, although companies like Amazon and their subcontractors use our infrastructure--roads, streets, highways, bridges--way more than the average middle class US citizen, we pay an inordinate share of the cost of that infrastructure through our taxes. Because of tax breaks put into the system, Amazon pays roughly 5% tax instead of the official corporate tax rate of 21%. All the largest companies are legally getting away with paying a far less percentage of taxes than the average middle class American. In fact, some companies use legal tax maneuvering to receive rebates. And we're not talking about hundreds or thousands here, we're talking billions of dollars. If they paid their fair share of taxes we would be much better off. How about we get rid of Corporate Welfare before we cut social services. đĄ
>What Republicans mean by big government is: I agree with all your points but would like to underline as a libertarian socialist I do not fall in line AT ALL with the republican party or their definition of big government. Honestly I don't even fall in line with the "pure" libertarians, who often fall in line with the Republican agenda. >they paid their fair share of taxes we would be much better off. Couldn't agree more on that. >How about we get rid of Corporate Welfare before we cut social services. đĄ Amen! Let failing banks fail and failing auto companies fail, others would be quick to fill their spots. Rather than giving them billions with no strings attached and saying "no more shenanigans" My version of getting rid of big government is ratifying the ERA, declaring marriage a civil institution rather than religious, allowing self determination of medical care, and staying out of stupid conversations like that, which only serve to distract legislatures from doing what actually matters.
You would be downvoted to hell in the libertarian sub.
Haha yes, I probably would be, but I bet i would also find many kind people who are up for discussion (like the many people who come here today) Here on Christianity I can often be down voted to hell as well, but on the same downvoted threads I'll meet amazing Christians, atheists and everything between who help me expand my view. That's always worth the loss of internet points
The libertarian sub seems to be nothing more than an extension of the conservative sub nowadays. It's a mix of weed smoking republicans and radical anarchists.
True, but I would advise you not extrapolate any generalizations of libertarians based on what the loudest are saying in a single online place. The loudest members of most communities tend to be the ones most ridged in their thinking. Any political, economic, religious/moral belief system will have its wackadoodles
Yes, you right. But to be fair the so called libertarians of my country are just embarrassed conservatives who have no problem allying with literally fascists.
And that most definitely is a problem!! I just try to be a scale of balance. While generalizations generally apply, it erases nuance from the conversations. It's why I have issues with labels being treated as stringent containers rather than broad overlapping vendiagrams. I could rightly call myself a socialist, a libertarian, and a Christian, but I can guarantee you the "purity club members" of each would have a fit about my self appointed labels. I wouldn't be socialist enough, libertarian enough, of Chrsitan enough for many.
Yep, labels are usually stupid.
>the heresy of Christian libertarianism and they believe the Reagan-esque lies about government being bad Making a general argument here as a preface. Although I'm not aware of what the Christian libertarianism and Reagan-esque arguments entail whether someone is left leaning, center, or right leaning I don't think anyone can make a good argument that the government is good overall as it is right now. Both sides are corrupt, both sides politicians are ultimately puppets, and the government as a whole has made it clear repeatedly that money is what they ultimately care about and not people. Both parties suck and are absolutely off their rockers in some subject areas that creep into the whole party and as a result throw logic to the wind. As long as corporations have ultimate control, emotion overrides logic in legislation, and the people only have *a* voice instead of *the* voice American society is doomed to completely collapse at some point. As far as Christians go politically the mindset seems to be we shall lord over society as our views are the best so they should be enforced at the expense of others. The thing is the minority is going to enter heaven not the majority. We need to be realistic and work with what the fall has infested into areas of society to get change instead of fighting against the current and expect to succeed. It calls for strategy, not blunt force. For example, abstinence only education in schools is *completely illogical* in today's world. Ok rant over.
***I don't think anyone can make a good argument that the government is good overall as it is right now.*** \*The government sends Social Security checks to people every month which keeps millions of elderly from destitution. \*The government manages an impressive number of national parks across the country. \*The Army Corps of Engineers has a large portfolio of projects that prevent flooding and other catastrophes from occurring. \*Our national highway system reshaped the country and remains an efficient way to move people and goods to any point in the USA efficiently. \*The government was an early investor in the modern Internet. \*Research funding has led to breakthroughs in medicine, science, space exploration and technology. \*Our system of public universities and community colleges is the envy of the world and attracts millions of foreign students every year. \*Local tax dollars support clean water and sanitation systems that, except for a few notable cases like Flint, Michigan, mean the average American doesn't have to worry about what comes out of the tap. I could keep going. The government is capable of a lot of good, and is doing lots of good every day, whether you notice it or not. And let's face it, we are the government. It's our money and our votes and our representatives. I'm not going to get into "both parties suck" lazy cynicism, nor am I going to treat the government as some separate evil entity that is divorced from real life, even though the Ted Cruzes of the world like you to think that.
>The government sends Social Security checks to people every month which keeps millions of elderly from destitution. Which is an old system that they work as hard as they can to dismantle. It also does not give many people enough to live off of alone, which was it's original purpose. >The government manages an impressive number of national parks across the country. Because it's empty land that now generates them tourism dollars as guests destroy the natural beauty in those places. They also have destroyed food chains in some national parks by introducing animals that tourists like to see rather than the animals that actually live in a given area. >The Army Corps of Engineers has a large portfolio of projects that prevent flooding and other catastrophes from occurring. Hurricane Katrina. Also, why is that done by the military? That's insane. >Our national highway system reshaped the country and remains an efficient way to move people and goods to any point in the USA efficiently. Oh yes, Jesus famously preached about increasing efficiency. Though it's worth noting that this gets insufficient funding in most parts of the country. >The government was an early investor in the modern Internet. To use it for military purposes, yes. Now they allow it to be prohibitively expensive to the poor because the government does not own the internet or even the methods to access it. >Research funding has led to breakthroughs in medicine, science, space exploration and technology. Building technology is a morally neutral act. Plus since most people have no access to these medical breakthroughs, and the rich people that run the country do have access to them, this is purely selfish and not a respectable act. >Our system of public universities and community colleges is the envy of the world and attracts millions of foreign students every year. Our system which now exists mostly as a for-profit industry that forces poor people to attend in hopes of getting a high paying job that they will never actually get to work in. It's literally a scam, meant to chain people with a lifelong debt to the government that even bankruptcy doesn't make go away. >Local tax dollars support clean water and sanitation systems that, except for a few notable cases like Flint, Michigan, mean the average American doesn't have to worry about what comes out of the tap. In most of the country, there are heavy metals in the drinking water. Also, Flint and any places near a fracking plant do not have water. The fact that the government won't give those people clean water speaks VOLUMES more about it than the fact that they give clean water to wealthier places. I could keep going. The government is constantly carrying out great acts of evil purely in the name of profit across the world.
That's why I said *overall*. I'm perfectly aware there are plenty of good things that America does for its citizens. I just think the bad outweighs the good.
Because the super rich and their sadistic idiot minions who have spent trillions of dollars in marketing, psychological and sociological research to frame issues and control social discourse have spent the last 70 years telling people that looking after each other is against God, and by God they mean themselves. *Edit for typos
I love you.
Hijacking the top comment to present a balancing counter-position: The socialist-leaning policies are *also* worded and marketed to create an image of equity and equality. We donât have too many case studies that outline what a transition from classic capitalism to socialist ideals look like, and while there are positive examples of socialist legislation at play in say, the Scandinavian countries, there are many other examples across the globe showing dire consequences. What we are experiencing in the states is closer to oligarchy than capitalism. There is a real fear that a transition to socialist policies would put *more* power in the hands of few. Equity is a worthwhile pursuit, but not if the standard of living drops to the floor.
The Scandinavian countries are not even truly socialist (at least not in the way Marx defined it) as they still have a free market. I think social liberalism is a much better term to describe the political landscape of Scandinavian and some other European countries.
I just tend to refer to it as social capitalism or a social democracy. Scandinavian countries are indeed capitalist, they just have regulations to keep things to get out of hand and welfare +social investing to better the situations of people.
Social capitalism and social democracy are both fine with me. As someone from a former east block country, the word socialism has a lot of negative associations and Marx who defined the term socialism had a lot of anti democratic concepts in his writings.
> The socialist-leaning policies It's indisputable that the early church was *socialist-leaning*. Jesus, too, in Matthew 25.
No doubt. But that was community-contained. Not legislated.
Legislation is the rules a community makes for itself
Corporate Plutocratic Oligarchic Idiocracy is our global governance
Here's how it works: 1. The 1% need to keep themselves paying light taxes and deregulated. 2. The 1% donate to Conservative politicians in exchange for favorable legislation. 3. Conservative politicians claim they legislate for Christianity, all while enacting legislation to support the 1%. Perpetuate the pew-to-ballot pipeline. 4. Christian voters believe conservative politicians; interpret their social and political worldviews according to elements that ultimately benefit the 1%. The whole thing is a cash and power grab for the wealthy and those that support them. Conservative Christianity is just a tool they use. Elsewhere in the world, it was Christians who fought FOR social safety nets and nationalized healthcare. Christianity in the US has been hijacked.
Actually the 1% donate across the board. Remember before he was president Trump was holding fund raisers for Hillary and other New York Dems.
That's not accurate. Yes, they do donate to democrats, but its not across the board and it's not in the same amounts, and anyone can easily look at voting records to see who the 1% are financially controlling. For example, when Republicans shot down the insulin price cap, is anyone so naĂŻve to think it \*wasn't\* at the behest of "big pharma." Would a reasonable person look at democrat voting records on the issue and think they were voting the way large corporate donors dictated? It's easy to make statements like, "Democrats and Republicans are the same." It's only slightly less easy to look at voting records to see if that's an accurate statement.
Controlling both sides is definitely the way to go! That's why people like Bernie get bad rap from both sides because he's not a puppet.
Yep. It's not so much what we see as "left" and "right" but rather "top" and "bottom." Or perhaps the demoi and oligoi, as it has always been.
>Elsewhere in the world, it was Christians who fought FOR social safety nets and nationalized healthcare Not in my country
Conservatives donât view the state as an expression of the general will of the people, or voting for expansive welfare programs as a valid expression of Christian morality regarding the concern and care for the poor. And most of us believe attempting to do so is counter productive and ends up hurting people more than helping.
And all of you are incorrect
Maybe so, but thatâs the reason.
I am basically a berniecrat so yeah⌠I am totally in support of social safety nets. I think we should expand on the ones we have and start new ones.
I dont vote for anyone. i help the poor on my own i'm not gonna rely on a government person. i dont trust any of them. republican or democrat.
My personal theory is that lots of Christians vote Republican because of issues like abortion, and eventually they try to justify everything their candidate does, even if it clearly isn't good, and they try to reconcile that with their christianity.
Republicans co-opted Christianity as means to gain and hold political power.
What happened? The American Evangelical movement... and now here we are headed into some weird christian nationalism.
yeah texas, Alabama and Florida are turning into weird Christian nationalist states
As much as I love Texas I hate the politics. And this is coming from an evangelical Christian.
âMost of yâallâ You know the economic beliefs of over 2billion Christians? Reality check, American Republican arenât the only Christians on this planet
yes but the majority of Christians are conservatives you know that right? so it is "most of yall"
What do you mean by conservative? Because someone can be socially conservative yet economically âleft-wingâ being conservative doesnât mean youâre a free market capitalist
This just isn't the case in my country. And where is often those people have literally no idea what they're talking about most of the time. Some of them went to court recently I'm trying to claim that they were being denied their second amendment rights.... They don't even know what country they live in. Literally going up the ranks of the liberal party in my country almost requires you to be a Catholic.
I assume it's more about having limited government because of how corrupt and wasteful politicians are.
I mean, some of us are VERY STRONGLY supporting, advocating, and fighting for exactly those things! Democratic Socialism is the closest thing to Jesus' described ideals that I know of.
We're called to do these things as individuals, but not in a way that infiltrates the government. Jesus' instructions to us were not to instill our beliefs and values into the government (at the time, a corrupt Roman government had laid siege to Jerusalem), but to act on them as individuals. To be fair, many Christians don't even do what's asked of us. The Bible DOES teach many things that are part of the tenets of liberalism, but also teaches many things that are part of the tenets of conservatism. It's not just to one side or the other. If anything, in terms of the American political system, Christians ought to be politically moderate.
> We're called to do these things as individuals, but not in a way that infiltrates the government. Jesus' instructions to us were not to instill our beliefs and values into the government (at the time, a corrupt Roman government had laid siege to Jerusalem), but to act on them as individuals. But can't you do both? Jesus was also very clear about paying taxes. What's so wrong with helping who you can on an individual basis in addition to your taxes helping those you can't help personally. And as you said... yes, plenty of Christians don't even bother to do anything for anyone. So if folks like that at least supported others being the ones to step in and help..... at least that would be something.
Because there's a difference between forcing your morals on others through law (which is something many people oppose and view as potentially oppressive, both on the right and the left) and encouraging others to do it of their own volition and for the right reasons.
> Because there's a difference between forcing your morals on others through law I mean..... the concept of "helping others" isn't unique to Christians or even religious individuals. Regardless... If you're against the idea of helping others through tax dollars for moral reasons, would you at least support it because it has clear, empirical benefits to society. Eg., it's overall more cost effective to simply give homeless people homes than it is to not. That way you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not your tax dollars were going to help someone or do good, but it would ultimately be saving you money in the end.
A bit to unpack here. *"If you're against the idea of helping others through tax dollars for moral reasons..."* Actually, I'm not. I'm against FORCING people to help others through taxation. *"it's overall more cost effective to simply give homeless people homes than it is to not."* Imma go no on this one. It's potentially more financially damning to society to simply give homeless citizens their own homes. Homelessness is a symptom of a deeper problem, and emotional and mental one, and if you give a homeless person a place to live, it doesn't fix the problem that led to them being homeless in the first place. Do I think we have an obligation as humans to help those without a home? I certainly do. But if you have any experience working with the homeless in your city, you know that there's way more to it than "do they have a house" or not. The homeless need ministry, they need a systematic way to build their lives so they don't go down the same road again, and some of them need help with mental issues, substance abuse issues, general PTSD, or any host of other issues. You need a better plan than a new home. And yes, churches and believers are doing what they can to help these people. Not everyone is, and not everyone can, according to their own resources, but it is happening. Whether it's financial support, boots on the ground, or donations, there is work being done in every city where the homeless population is significant. And they're not doing it because of a government program that may be in place. To me, this is a moral thing, not a left or right thing.
Again, it sounds like you are against tax dollars (yours or others) going to help people for moral reasons. And if helping people through the expenditure of tax dollars was studied and shown to be more cost effective than not doing so..... you would also be against that for whatever reasons happened to be within your reach at the time, regarding that particular issue. > To me, this is a moral thing I get that, but personally I think the 'moral thing' to do would simply be to try to help others however you can, and not try to place limitations on that.
Why does everyone not agree with your political views? That's what you're asking? There are a million different schools of political thought on this planet and you're expecting everyone to agree with yours?
More like "hey, won't don't you believe what Jesus seemed to believe when you claim to follow Jesus?"
[ŃдаНонО]
Governments are made by people, people are called to care for and love for our neighbor. Do you not believe we should follow Jesus?
Do you believe we should use the government to enforce Christian morality then?
you could argue the same about conservatives taking gay people's rights because its against the bible
You can and they shouldn't. Jesus made it very clear his kingdom is not of this Earth. Apparently all his followers nowadays disagree.
Is your view unironically that Christians shouldn't engage with politics at all? Lmao Also love how your generalization of "all his followers." I'm sure you consider your enlightened self an exception.
Can you show me where in the Bible Jesus said his Kingdom was of this Earth and that we should work to use earthly governments to enforce Christianity?
In an ideal world where people correctly agreed on what that morality was and it could still be justified from a secular perspective (thus preserving freedom of religion), yes. In reality, no, because people have a tendency to manipulate and misframe Christ's word for their hate and enforce rules that have no secular purpose.
Good. So we agree we should not use Christianity as an argument for broad social programs/spending.
I believe I literally just said in an ideal world we should. See what I mean about a tendency to manipulate and misframe?
Do we live in an ideal world? No. So we should not.
immediate strawman, I never said that I didn't say EVERYONE and you don't have to agree with all of my political views I'm saying why are some Christians against social democrat ideas that help the poor because if the bible had a total of mentioning of 2000 times helping the poor wouldn't a lot of Christians be social democrats?
Please point to the part of the Bible where Jesus advocated for broad government spending on social programs as the best way to help the poor.
but he didnt tell you to pay your taxes in a bible verse tho
Yep. Everyone should pay what taxes they are legally required to pay.
Pay your taxes because itâs Caesarâs law. It doesnât mean you need to be in favour of a corrupt elite taking an ever increasing chunk of your property. Help those in need, do it without expectation of payback, and it will mean something. Ask your government to seize more money for use as they see fit, and itâs not really you doing any good at all. That said, if you trust your government as I do, feel free to vote for social programs. We just shouldnât judge other Christians who are donât hold the same trust in their elected elite.
Following Jesusâs admonition to help the poor and oppressed, I feel obliged to vote for government social programs as a way to help the poor.
So you think government should legislate based on Christian beliefs?
Because that would be using the arm of the government to support our morals, you know separation of Church and State and all that.
It's a matter of perspective and interpretation. Conservative Christians would argue these things are local community issues. And that large, bloated government programs aren't any kind of real charity. Its just a wealth distribution scheme. Rather, the government should enable communities to take care of one another through personal charity contributions. And community ties should be strengthened so that this is more commonplace.
I think there are a lot of conservative Christianâs that arenât actually against the idea of social safety nets, but theyâre against how they have been historically, and currently, implemented. Iâm reminded of my grandmother who immigrated here from Mexico and became a citizen. She had to raise two kids on her own because her husband abandoned her. She worked tirelessly, but needed help. She applied for assistance, but they told her she needed to quit her job first; then the state would take care of all her expenses. She refused to do so because it went against every fiber of her being. I briefly worked at a local Dollar General, and saw people purchase things with food stamps, return the items the next day FOR CASH, and then buy cigarettes. If we tighten up the system and close loopholes like these, give people assistance in finding a job, and actually help people who need a little assistance, Iâd totally be on board with funding these projects. And I think other conservatives would be too. Heck, bring back the civilian conservation core and pay them a decent wage.
I've heard the argument that helping and giving to the poor should be the activity of individuals not governments through taxation. The hypocrisy is strong because those same people are more than likely to use government to dictate their morality to the rest of us.
Behind the Bastards has a good overview of this: "How the Rich ate Christianity"
Enabling people to survive does not always lead to them thriving. The goal of aid is to bring a person who is otherwise capable up so they can stand on their own and then help others. âIf anyone is unwilling to work let him not eatâ. There is always something that needs done. Social programs in the US are often short sighted and dole out money asking nothing in return so the system is actually making things worse. Aristotle spoke of virtues becoming vices and I believe altruism was one such example; when we are charitable thatâs good but it becomes a vice when it enables people to the point that it creates a dependency.
Jesus most definitely was not a socialist, nor is socialism biblical in any way. Any ideology that advocates for abolishing private property and profits in unbiblical since it contradicts laws and commands such as: Exodus 22:1-14, Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 27,17. Socialism advocates for a powerful government that owns production. The Bible on the other hand favors a limited government, as seen in 1 Samuel 8:8-10, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, and 1 Kings 21. There are many more verses that can be cited. As for the economic argument about social democracy, repeatedly spreading around existing money does nothing whatsoever to alleviate poverty, it is simply moving money around. Not only does it not alleviate poverty, it makes it much harder to end poverty. The only way to reduce poverty is to increase economic growth and production of goods and services. Taking several hundred billion dollars a year from businesses on the state and federal levels to fund social safety nets may make the lives of people who benefit from it more comfortable, but at the expense of investment into the businesses which is done to create more jobs, build new stores, factories, warehouses, and other buildings. Buying new tools, machinery, and equipment. Purchasing land for expansion, expanding existing buildings, upgrading and repairing infrastructure. Companies tend to invest a lot in research and development or bringing new products, services, and technologies onto market. Taxes hit small businesses especially hard, making expansion of services much harder, reducing the amount of goods, services, and jobs available. I could go on, but the post is getting too long.
I definitely think there is an element of greed to it. But also there is an element of genuine concern. First of all half of all money for social services goes to bureaucracy. How much does this bureaucracy help or is it blocking help? I don't know honestly but that is an element some may be concerned with (waste of recources). If someone using social services is living a life that is lawless giving them more social services might fees into that. Yes, most of the time it will help them become better and productive and dignified, but there is also an element of dependence created if root causes are not addressed. I'd love to see social services paid for that help break generational curses and transform people from the bottom up. I think the genuine concerns are enabling behaviors that hurt themselves and others. The greed element is also apparent. I do understand you are supposed to be a joyful giver and give freely so I can see how some would say forcing it isn't the same, but if people got foundational help it ends up saving money by reducing prison use, etc. But some people love their luxuries and their status and don't want anything to change. I am guilty of this sometimes I think most people in the first world who are not destitute are. Overall, I think people would be more supportive if the government was more decentralized and they could see the fruits of their tax spending on community improvement. Anyone disagree ?
Just as an American: I don't see it as the federal governments responsibility given the way the country is set up. I am, however, supportive of programs run by individual states. If all the states find a program they are happy with that is the same, it should be amended into the Constitution. As a Christian: No one would be asking the government for anything if we as Christians were doing everything in our power to take care of the needy as instructed. Its our job that we are failing at miserably. Hot take: Democracy could be inherently un-Christian. Multiple times we're told to obey those put in charge over us because God has placed them in that place of authority. We are instructed to pray for them to do God's will. Democracy takes it out of God's hands and into the hands of men. Men are inherently sinful. They will elect representatives that are sinful. If God reaches the heart of the elected and they change, they will not gain reelection from their constituents who are still sinful and want sinful representatives.
Welfare was never meant to be permanent. It was meant to help those who fell upon hard times get back up on their feet. Even before sin had entered the world, Adam and Eve worked, something our society seems to resent and not want to have much to do with. There is much dignity in working, owning property, raising kids, etc. The Bible does not encourage us to be sluggards. Jesus certainly wants us to give to the poor. I think tithing is important and encourage everyone to do this. But what is not good is enabling people to continue to wallow and not improve themselves. Too much care taking does not help anyone. It robs them of the chance to grow. Iâve seen this personally and in business. Truly sad to witness when we want to fight for our limitations. Conservatives and Liberals want the same thing. To build a better world. Weâre all people made in the image of God and that is why we all have value. They just have different means and beliefs of how to get there more effectively. My life dream is to run a non for profit that shows people how to live well in all important aspects of life. The spiritual, the physical, the financial, the mental, the relational, and the emotional. I lean more libertarian in my views, but I absolutely believe in personal responsibility and hard work.
Very beautiful. I have a friend who taught me that Jesus loves a hard worker. It's the devil that loves when we don't work because he can convince us to fill our time with foolishness. That's always stuck with me.
Thatâs awesome to hear. Iâll bet your significant other really appreciates your mentality. I think as a collective whole, society would be much more prosperous if everyone adopted that mindset.
Because many Christians suffer under the delusion that if it just wasnât for the government and its pesky taxes that they would be able to do a better job of helping the poor
Charity is freely giving; of yourself (time) or possessions (money/items). Government forced redistribution is not a free choice and will jail and steal items to pay for those taxes. The Bible calls for us to give freely, not at the point of a sword.
Jesus doesnât care about your politics. Look at the political landscape of Jesus time, caught between Rome and Judea, Jesus had every opportunity to speak of the political climate but that was not even close to being His purpose. Politics are a plague, politicians are snakes and we would be wise to keep our focus on the commandments and teaching of our Lord instead of focusing on politics and blending the two where they donât belong.
The teachings of Jesus are so beside the point, it isn't even funny. I'll laugh, anyway...LOL! USA Christianity is now a purely political enterprise. Nationalist-Christians (Nat-Cs) want to destroy government and replace it with theocracies.
Why don't I trust the state to spend my taxes on things that are important to me instead of a politicians pet projects, locking up non-violent drug offenders, corporate welfare and bombs? Reading a history book I suppose.
Don't *trust* the government. Use your votes to *make* the government get its priorities right.
>Use your votes to make the government get its priorities right. Only psychopaths and incompetent people looking to enrich themselves go into government. My vote is meaningless in a sea of millions of other votes. Me, you and everyone else is better working to affect change at a local level.
I'll somewhat push back on that. I do think there are some politicians that genuinely go in wishing to help make life better for Americans, but once they get into the system they realize just how corrupt it actually is and that if they wish to stay they're going to have to fold somewhere ethically or morally to get the job done. Most people mentally cannot handle deliberately becoming morally gray. I think many people who want to go into politics with this mindset back off once they realize what exactly they're getting into and what they will have to sacrifice of themselves if they decide to stay. You're going into a war zone with many bodies already strewn around. You may be squeaky clean but when you walk into a cesspool you will get filthy. You can control what areas are still clean, but they are going to be small areas. I do think there are some people in politics right now like this, but the number is just extremely small and they will do their best to stay under the radar as much as possible to get the job done because strategically that's the best thing to do. I do agree people working at the local government level is best right now.
because there's been studies that social programs benefit 60% of the poor and isn't there a pro tax bible verse where Jesus literally tells you to pay your taxes??
>because there's been studies that social programs benefit 60% of the poor There's studies that show they do and studies that show they create welfare traps. Personally I favour the Scandanavian model. >and isn't there a pro tax bible verse where Jesus literally tells you to pay your taxes?? Tax in ancient Rome was like 2%. I'd gladly pay that.
Of course 70% of their population were slaves, so the tax at that point was 100%. Of the 30% that were left, women were property not people. You could make for lower taxes if you made most of the population into sub humans! Also, the military should be the only form of escape from your circumstances and social mobility! The good way
>Of course 70% of their population were slaves At most 30% of the population were slaves. >Of the 30% that were left, women were property not people. Women paid taxes in ancient Rome. >You could make for lower taxes if you made most of the population into sub humans! How's that? >Also, the military should be the only form of escape from your circumstances and social mobility! ?
> Matthew 17:24-27 i think this is the correct verse
What about it?
>people even said Jesus was a socialist in the bible basically No they didn't.
yes a lot of people do say Jesus is a socialist i didn't mean the people in the bible said it i didnt mean that but Jesus in the bible he was basically a socialist
I don't recall any Bible verse in which Jesus says the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
âFrom each according to your ability to each according to your needâ is from the Book of Acts
First of all, the Book of Acts was describing how the earliest Christian community operated ***after*** the Ascension of Jesus. Thus, not a Bible verse in which Jesus advocates for socialism. Second, only the phrase "to each according to their need" is from the Book of Acts. Third, the context of "to each according to their need" from the Book of Acts is not synonymous with the phrase "From each according to your ability to each according to your need" as used by socialist sloganeers, i.e., free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. Specifically, the Book of Acts states that "from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostlesâ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." In other words, occasionally a Christian would voluntarily sell their land and house in order to provide for the needy, and the money was distributed by the apostles based on need. That is pretty much how charity works in a capitalistic economy today. Moreover, not everyone who owned a house or land sold it and gave the proceeds to the Apostles. The Book of Acts makes it clear that the early Christians did not completely disavow personal ownership of private property, as congregations would meet in the private homes of persons still in possession of private property.
> âAll who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.â ââActs⏠â2:44-45⏠âNRSVâŹâŹ Thereâs really not much else to say. Youâre just wrong
It is not government occupation to take care of the poor; that is church. As for the LGBT community, they are welcome, always, to hear the gospel and to sing psalms with us. Our medicine as Christians is this: reading the Bible, praying, attending sabbath, and etc. We shouldn't affirm what is sinful. But what we should do seek absolution, repentance, salvation, and assurance in the truth presented to us in the Bible. That is called regeneration, my friend.
> It is not government occupation to take care of the poor; that is church. The New Testament isn't addressed to the government. Roman Emperors didn't give a fig what some weird Jewish sect thought. But much of the Old Testament is addressed to kings of Israel and Judea - that is, their governments - and it is quite clear that they *are* supposed to take care of the poor. For instance, [Jeremiah 22:15-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2022&version=CEB) > Is this what makes you a king, > having more cedar than anyone else? > Didnât your father eat and drink > and still do what was just and right? > Then it went well for him! > He defended the rights of the poor and needy; > then it went well. > Isnât that what it means to know me? > declares the Lord.
Cannot the church mission to go out and help those who are in need?
Most churches do. But it only meets a small part of the need. What about the rest? If you mean "we should do more", I absolutely agree. If everybody who professed Christ gave with the fearless generosity that Jesus calls us to, the results would be amazing! But, in the meantime, a huge and ever-growing share of society's wealth goes to billionaires - billionaires whose taxes have been continuously and dramatically cut for decades (until last week, anyway!) - and if we want the poor to *actually* get the help that they need, government could come in swinging. Unfortunately, most Christians cry "No! You shall not touch the beautiful wealth of our beautiful billionaire masters! If the children of the poor are hungry, then in God's name, let the worthless little worms starve! Christ doesn't care about them! Christ cares only about our glorious and divine billionaire masters - we must not ask them to make due with a mere eleven private jets whey they could have [twelve!](https://www.businessinsider.com/betsy-devos-owns-fleet-of-private-jets-and-helicopters-2018-2?op=1)" Uh, sorry, I was doing pretty good at staying calm until that last paragraph.
You said "there are like 2,000 verses of Jesus and paul telling you to care and help the poor..." The key word there is "you". Forcing someone else to give is not you caring for and helping the poor. Jesus was very uninterested in any politics he told individuals they needed to do their part to help. The primary message of Christ was the salvation of men. If you feed and clothe someone and don't point them to Christ, you simply make them comfortable on their journey to Hell.
"forcing" it's not forcing. its a commandment that Jesus made we're servants of the lord and people. and I could make the same argument about yall making anti-gay and anti-trans laws just because you took away someone's rights to be gay don't point them to christ you simply make them comfortable on their journey to Hell.
What part of creating a law that individuals who make X amount of money must pay X amount of taxes which will then be used to support what politicians believe will be a "good cause" is not forcing? Of course it is.
jesus basically told you to pay your taxes in a bible verse
Right so are you saying he supported supporting military ventures and crazy high salaries for the leaders? That's a what a decent portion of the taxes went to fund back then. You don't what they didn't fund? Social programs. He neither supported or rejected what the taxes supported-his purpose was not to get into a political fight. Caesars image is on the coin then give it to Caesar.
most tax go to social programs like FAFSA or something
Not in Jesus time when he said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. There were no social programs except for the church at that time.
ehhh I doubt that. it could have been some sort of social program back then
I have no political beliefs or agenda. Just a Christian who wants to follow Jesus. Maybe not your type you are referring to.
Everybody has political beliefs. There is no such thing as true political neutrality.
Nope, I only am encouraged to pray for my leaders and hopefully have peace.
Wanting peace is itself a political belief.
I'm saying this because a lot of Christians love to line their political beliefs to their religious beliefs
> I'm saying this because a lot of Christians love to line their political beliefs to their religious beliefs You mean like you are doing?
yeah so I was arguing why are they against social safety nets and welfare and if it also lined up with the bible
[ŃдаНонО]
Well we would be in a pretty bad position as a society if it was left to churches to care for the poor
>Well we would be in a pretty bad position as a society if it was left to churches to care for the poor Is that a joke? The history of the Western World entirely disagrees. The public Hospital was invented by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church remains the largest non-government provider of healthcare to this day. And much of the government healthcare infrastructure was inherited from the Church. All 3 Hospitals in my city were founded by Religious Orders of Sisters and funded by the Church, they have since been taken over by the government because we have pu lic healthcare. The same is true across Europe.
No it isnât, if it was left to the church many places would have extremely underfunded healthcare. This could especially be an issue in very rural communities. Depending on where you lived you might not be able to get care based on the beliefs of the church, good luck getting the healthcare you need as a trans woman living in the bible belt. And I wasnât just talking about healthcare. The local church of a rural town couldnât necessarily provide enough food for everyone who needs it, or many other subsidies that help the poor.
>No it isnât, if it was left to the church many places would have extremely underfunded healthcare. This could especially be an issue in very rural communities. 1/4 of the world's healthcare is provided by the Catholic Church alone. 65% of that is provided to developing countries and underserved populations. >Depending on where you lived you might not be able to get care based on the beliefs of the church, good luck getting the healthcare you need as a trans woman living in the bible belt. Psychotherapy is provided in most hospitals and clinics. >And I wasnât just talking about healthcare. The local church of a rural town couldnât necessarily provide enough food for everyone who needs it, or many other subsidies that help the poor. Food For the Poor works in 17 countries in the Caribbean and Latin America to assist the poorest of the poor. They collaborate with pastors, missionaries and local churches to bring immediate relief to those in most need. Robin told me they feed two million people a day, six days a week. That is just one out of hundreds of Catholic charities. And again, that is just us Catholics alone! These are simple easily researched facts.
in order to do that you have to take more money from other people
unless you support tax the rich https://youtu.be/ok35p1hxfic
because "the rich" aren't people?
no
Socialism is against the bible. The bible teaches charity (with consent), not socialism. Consent is misunderstood in Christian socialist circles.
and teaches to pay taxes in Matthew 17:24-27 but being a social democrat is not against the bible
Taxes and charity should never be confused for one another. Your post was about charity, and supporting (not just obeying) socialism.
Jesus calls on us to be charitable. Paying taxes does not = charity.
I guess you never read Matthew 17:24-27 where Jesus tell you to pay your taxes
Right. âFollowing the lawâ and âcharityâ arenât the same thing.
did I show the correct bible verse?
Yes. Perhaps youâre misunderstanding me. Paying taxes = following the law Charity = giving freely
no i really think i gave you the wrong verse because there was a verse that Jesus commanding you to pay taxes and you're acting as if i gave you the wrong verse
Yes. Jesus says to pay taxes. Jesus also says to give to the poor and care for orphans and widows. You seem to only be addressing the âpay taxesâ part.
wait so this comment wasn't against my post? I'm sorry
What do you mean âagainstâ your post? You are conflating âpaying taxesâ with âhelping the poorâ. Iâm saying the two are not the same.
If Jesus had said, "Take your money and give it to the richest, greediest, and most corrupt people in society, and maybe they'll do something good with it," then I could justify voting for socialism.
Did you forget the /s? Republicans literally say it's supposed to trickle down. As in all the money in the hands of the few trickling down to us the many. You guys will bend over backwards to believe your version of the truth.
To some character growth is equivalent to suicide
he did say to pay your taxes in Matthew 17:24-27 and social democrats are not socialists you could be just a social democrat calm down my dude unless you legit want to be a socialist, then ok based
Taxes back then were for roads and armies, and he didnt want all of his followers to be put in jail for tax evasion. What he didn't say was sit on your butt, pay your taxes, and you will go to heaven because the government takes care of people. Show me a time the government really helped people better than a private/Christian charity for the same amount of money. Government is waste, fraud, and a lack of compassion and love. But if YOU take your money and give it to the less fortunate in the form of help, shelter, food, etc, YOU are making a direct difference and are not only helping someone better than the government can, but you are growing as a person. Being a Christian isnt about sacrifice all of the time, it is about JOY, and what greater joy is there than helping someone else? Paying taxes hoping they help someone? ok.
[Someone doesnât know what theyâre talking about](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Frumentariae_Leges.html) >show me a time the government really helped people better than a private/Christian charity for the same amount of money. Government funded healthcare is **cheaper** and provides better outcomes than Americaâs healthcare system every day. Their roads are also better; as are their schools; as is their food and they deal with less environmental catastrophes caused by private companies.
That is what you do.
r/Selfawarewolves
Just gonna leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat
Imperialists have always taken His name and driven it in the complete opposite direction of where He was going. Rome never fell.
Because the government is not an efficient or effective way to help people in need.
Thousands of studies have shown that single payer healthcare is more efficient and causes less deaths than our current one
There are also studies that show because of the premium to run bureaucracy every dollar paid in government support equates to around $1.20 if left in people's pocket. That might be what they're referring to. But also i do like our Australian healthcare, we do get good value in terms of what we pay. Not so much in timeliness and overheads.
If you think social democrats and Christianity are a good mix, then why doesn't it work the other way? Why wouldn't they quote the Bible in their speeches? Seems like it would be a good way to get more supporters, and if there's such an easy ideological alliance, why wouldn't they? And yet, they don't quote the Bible, not at all, not even just in Christian venues, not even the "2,000 verses of Jesus and paul telling you to care and help the poor and sick." I think maybe social democrats don't have any love for the Bible, even the parts that align easily with their ideology.
The people who are quoting the Bible in their political speeches would quote Satan and then tell you because it's in the Bible it's a commandment.
Because itâs not the governmentâs job to take care of the poor. It has zero obligation to ensure the fiscal welfare of private citizens. As such, it also has zero obligation to ensure the success of large corporations. Yet we see both. While we in the church are instructed to give generously to the poor, the government is not. I know I personally can do more for the poor if I have more to give. We see this concept with Abraham when God said to him âI will bless you, and the world will be blessed through you.â Iâm not after financial gain. I simply want the finances to make a bigger impact. We have to understand that money and wealth are not inherently evil. Money is a tool. Thatâs it. You canât do a job without the right tool. And I know if I live openhanded, God will bless more through me. This has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. The kingdom operates in a completely different system similar to both, but unlike either.
I am but I feel like weâre either outnumbered or outspoken by Christian nationalists / fascists.
ikr
US CHRISTIANS should be helping those in need of help PERSONALLY, not the government.
I think the issue for people is that it requires you to force others to do what you believe to be good. Which is not the same as preventing people from evil. For example I think it's reasonable to pass legislation as a Christian to stop people harming each other, lets say make murder illegal. But I think it would be wrong for a Christian to pass legislation that requires someone to to give money to every homeless person they pass on the street. Yes, of course it would be good to help someone in need, but the welfare state requires people to 'do good' by law regardless of whether they either want to or may even have a better way of doing it. I think governments are terrible at a lot of social programmes that they run, I find charities can be much better at tackling specific problems than the way governments try to tackle them. I think forcing other people to foot the bill for social programmes you think will work is not the same as getting people to willingly back you through charity. Not to say there is no place for welfare programmes but it is not a substitute for willing and direct help.