Post Reply
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Christian capitalists
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 10:33PM #31
Blü
Posts: 25,190

57


I trust you're are not suggesting the christian don't "advocate" for the poor?


Jesus plainly did.  Many liberals do too, Christians, Buddhists, atheists &c, but in the US Christians predominate.  Many conservatives don't - Christians, Buddhists, atheists &c, but in the US Christians again predominate.


Those US states that have the most secular principles represented in their government have the lowest amounts of social dysfunction, and those US states where Christian fundamentalism rules have easily the worst.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 11:40PM #32
jonny42
Posts: 6,733

Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:33PM, Blü wrote:


57


I trust you're are not suggesting the christian don't "advocate" for the poor?


Jesus plainly did.  Many liberals do too, Christians, Buddhists, atheists &c, but in the US Christians predominate.  Many conservatives don't - Christians, Buddhists, atheists &c, but in the US Christians again predominate.


Those US states that have the most secular principles represented in their government have the lowest amounts of social dysfunction, and those US states where Christian fundamentalism rules have easily the worst.




Can you give examples of the particular legislation these states have, and how you think it contributes to social dysfunction?  


How do you think fatherlessness factors into social dysfunction?  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 5:19AM #33
Blü
Posts: 25,190

jonny


Can you give examples of the particular legislation these states have, and how you think it contributes to social dysfunction?


I have no specific examples of legislation in mind.  My statement is based on statistical summaries.



How do you think fatherlessness factors into social dysfunction?


One parent families are a factor, though the situation gets its real bite when coupled with poverty.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 5:44AM #34
Kwinters
Posts: 22,596

Ah ha! Got the video insert to work....finally!

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 11:22AM #35
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,285

Apr 22, 2012 -- 1:45PM, 57 wrote:


Oh, OK...so you feel they should just hand over their earnings? 


Sounds like you're all for the Socialist  agenda.





I'm not a socialist, but I do know that a large number of rich people didn't do very much work for their earnings. A lot of them invested their money in investments that did well, and now they're rich. But not a lot of work was done by their hands.


We should put an extra tax on their capital gains. I don't believe that it would discourage investment.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 12:07PM #36
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

Apr 23, 2012 -- 11:22AM, MMarcoe wrote:


I'm not a socialist, but I do know that a large number of rich people didn't do very much work for their earnings. A lot of them invested their money in investments that did well, and now they're rich. But not a lot of work was done by their hands.



Got a link for that?  I am not saying there are no rich people who just got their money from inheritance, but my take has always been that the really wealthy are first-generation rich.  Historically, from Carnegie  to Ford to Hughes to Gates, money is predominantly a first-generation thing.  




Apr 23, 2012 -- 11:22AM, MMarcoe wrote:


We should put an extra tax on their capital gains. I don't believe that it would discourage investment.




Bad idea.  First off, historically imposing new and higher taxes on an activity discourages that activity.  Second, increasing capital gains tax would punish ALL investors, not just the rich.  Those who were already wealthy would just move their money while the middle-class Americans considering investing in American businesses would be motivated to just sit on it instead.  You'd be nose-diving the economy by killing off capital.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 3:25PM #37
57
Posts: 24,039

Apr 23, 2012 -- 11:22AM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 22, 2012 -- 1:45PM, 57 wrote:


Oh, OK...so you feel they should just hand over their earnings? 


Sounds like you're all for the Socialist  agenda.





I'm not a socialist,


If your not a socialist then your a commy  Come on pal..I've read your post..


but I do know that a large number of rich people didn't do very much work for their earnings. A lot of them invested their money in investments that did well, and now they're rich. But not a lot of work was done by their hands.


You sound jealous.  Perhaps so jealous you feel the need to deamonize those that have.


We should put an extra tax on their capital gains. I don't believe that it would discourage investment.


..Yup, re-distrubute the weath.  (and you said your not a socialist.)





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 3:45PM #38
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,108

Apr 23, 2012 -- 12:07PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


Got a link for that?  I am not saying there are no rich people who just got their money from inheritance, but my take has always been that the really wealthy are first-generation rich.  Historically, from Carnegie  to Ford to Hughes to Gates, money is predominantly a first-generation thing.  




The Economist did an article on the phenomena of social mobility and wealth distribution a while ago:


www.economist.com/node/3518560?story_id=...


I think there is more current data available, but it's behind a pay wall.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 3:49PM #39
lope
Posts: 11,796

Apr 22, 2012 -- 6:09PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


While I fully appreciate a person can't practically give away everything (it's easy for Jesus to recommend such things, given there is no real evidence He held down a job), I'm unclear how expecting financially better-off Christians to be more generous is a bad thing or how Jesus would feel about it.  I mean, I realize Jesus demanded 100%, and in Acts apparently it's a death sentence if you want to keep a portion for yourself later, but given the impracticality of such thoughts, I think a good compromise is "give more if you have more".  People who have golden toilets and several hous ... MANSIONS aren't investing in their companies, so you can't argue that letting them keep the wealth helps the economy or business or whatever.  It only helps THEM.




Jesus expected His followers to help the poor.  He did not expect them to steal from the wealthy and use part of it on the poor.  Jesus told one man to sell all he had and follow him.  He never said all his followers must sell all they have and give it to the poor.  It was not a death sentence to keep a portion and give a portion to help someone else.  That is not what Acts says or even apparently what it says.  I can and do argure that class warfare and trying to destroy the rich is not good for the economy or business and it always fails to accomplish its stated goal.  It is the middle class that gets chopped, everytime.  It is also a false premise that we can have all we need if we just take it from the rich.  We are so far in debt, all the money belonging to the rich could not bail us out.  There is only one solution to overspending--spending more than you have or will be receiving.  That is to not spend more than you have or are going to be receiving.  For all the arguments about so and so needs help--the question is are you going to get them help from not spending it on stupid things or are you just going to go ahead and spend it on stupid stuff and help them by borrowing some more money we cannot pay back, so that we can help those in need?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 5:16PM #40
amcolph
Posts: 18,010

Apr 23, 2012 -- 3:49PM, lope wrote:


 


Jesus expected His followers to help the poor.  He did not expect them to steal from the wealthy and use part of it on the poor. 




LOL! Only a Conservative could characterize the tax policies of a democratically elected government as "stealing from the wealthy."


Of course, I realize that taxation is "stealing from the wealthy" only when the money is used to help the poor but not when it pays for imperialistic foreign wars or subsidies to mega-corporations.


Thanks--this was the laugh of the day.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook