Is Obama a flip-flopper ?

We don't have a pure capitalist economy...probably never have. Industries are regulated, although the GOP has been unshackling them in exchange for campaign contributions for years. The redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the middle class is the end result. I am constantly amazed at how people vote against their own interests to support their own demise.

 

Except for the blurb on the GOP I think I can agree with these statements.

That's what a meant by "well protected" capitalism. We are not "protecting" it as we once did and are constantly demanding government interference thinking that the result is better than not doing so. No doubt there are problems that can come about - shortages, high prices, low wages, etc. - but the system, if left alone, is self regulating and someone will come forth with a better idea to benefit from it. Government solutions just hide the problem, redistribute the proceeds, artifically support a failing technology, tires to make up for bad decisions, etc. It does not work and it makes no difference if it's Democrats, Republicans, or some other party that tries it.

 

Completely wrong. Us little guys are the most vital component in the capitalistic scheme......We determine the forces...

 

I gave my opinion.

 

Redistribution of wealth are marxist characteristics, not Capatalist characteristics. You appear confused.

 

Then why does wealth continue to move to the top tier of the wealthy and away from the middle class?? I don't have a reference, but I have seen several news articles detailing such. It is a trend that has been accellerating. If you research I am sure you will find it. You my friend, are the confused one. You appear to be taking a page from carpros operating manual...if someone disagrees with you, declare them to be confused. :laugh:

 

Easy to find the stats.

From a story HERE

Unbridled capitalism does indeed appear to redistribute wealth to the top of the pile. Them who's got the gold makes the rules, and the rules they make favor themselves. That is human nature.

 

Correct. There is certainly no scriptural support for the implementation of pure capitalism. If anything, the kingdom vision that Jesus espouses is one where all institutions of the world - including the governmental ones - enshrine the kingdom value of ensuring that the poor are taken care of.

People will argue that it is not the role of the "government" to do such things - that the church should be taking care of the poor. Obviously, the church should indeed be doing this. But central to Paul's gospel message is that Jesus supplants Ceasar as the true governmental authority of this present world. This is why Paul got into so much trouble.

The word "gospel" in Paul's day was used to denote the ascendance of a new emperor to the throne in Rome. Paul knows what he is doing by using the word "gospel" when referring to Jesus. He is announcing a new King - and this will not sit well with Caesar.

The point is that Jesus really is "Lord of all" - including the governments of this present world. What many (perhaps the majority) of western Christians have done is to buy into the enlightenment idea of "kicking God upstairs where He belongs" and "we'll run things down here for now, thank you very much".

And this, of course, suits the power interests who then can avoid having to submit their practices to the real demands of the true King. And it suits the prince of darkness who is probably wringing his hands with glee as Christians effectively push Jesus out of public life and confine him to a narrow domain of private spirituality that is impotent to transform the real world so that it conforms to the Kingdom values espoused by Jesus.

 

Political categories aside, re-distribution of wealth - as a concept certainly - most definitely a characteristic of the world if God were running the show.

In the jubilee ordnance, implemented in Leviticus 25, we have clear example of where God stands on the issue of "re-distribution" of wealth:

'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. 24 Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.
25 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. 26 If, however, a man has no one to redeem it for him but he himself prospers and acquires sufficient means to redeem it, 27 he is to determine the value for the years since he sold it and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it; he can then go back to his own property. 28 But if he does not acquire the means to repay him, what he sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and he can then go back to his property.

Does this sound like good old fashioned capitalism to you?

 

This assumes the middle class had possession of the wealth to begin with. This is false. This trend that is "accelerating" has been accelerating (supposedly) since men like Karl Marx. I wonder when the acceleration will be seen as coming to a climax. The truth is this acceleration is rather mystical. It cannot really be located.

The confusion you possess stems from this mystical acceleration. Marxists like yourself want to take money that others have worked for by their labor and time and give it to those who ahs not. That is the true definition of wealth redistribution. You cannot redistribute wealth the middle class never had.

 

To be fair to both sides of this issue, and even though I see the jubilee law as mandating "re-distribution of wealth" as a kingdom principle, I am not sure that one can read the Jubilee principle as mandating the return of property (read "wealth") to someone who had sold his land and has been unable to buy it back because he has been sitting around smoking cigarettes and drinking Wild Turkey. I can only assume, based on other scriptures, that the intent here is not to reward laziness, but rather to provide for those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.

 

This doesnt address capitalism or taking wealth from someone and giving it to those who never possessed it.

 

Again this is not a redistribution of wealth as marxists liek we have in our current government are pushing for. Not even close.

 

It is true that the Jubilee text that I previously posted deals with the matter of returning property to someone who owned it.

However, the notion of a law requiring one to give back something to someone who owned it previously, even if that person cannot pay to redeem his land, is really a very non-capitalist idea.

As is the statement that seems to undermine the notion that people "own bits of this earth":

'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.

I am no expert here, but I thought one of the tenets of capitalism was the idea that we can own "private property". And as we read on in Lev 25, we get this, which seems to describe a way of ordering a society that seems to deviate from the capitalist model (at least how I understand it):

'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.

This is not stuff that is irrelevant to our world. And it has nothing to do with the return of something previously owned. A world run according to God's kingdom principles enshrines these decidedly "non-capitalist" ideals.

Now there are some things in the jubilee model that strike us as pretty strange. But I do think we have clear guidance that the model God wants us to implement is certainly not the "standard" model of capitalism.

Let me be clear: I think that there is little doubt that we need to structure our society according to "free market" principles. But I do think there are ways that we need to "reign things in" in order to enact the general themes of "forgiveness of debt" and "not taking advantage" that are presented in the jubilee text.

 

I am always for providing aid to those who truly need it. The problem I have with marxism and the current political and economic model of marxism that is being pushed is that it be done via the government. It is a poor method of stewardship, and discourages self sufficiencey. The passage you quote in fact is not in any opposition to capatalism.

 

RM, you cannot quit wih personal attacks, can you? Not only unbecoming from a 'minister', your calling me a Marxist is uncalled for and a tactic of one with no valid argument. You also are demonstrating ignorance, as i am anything but a follower of Marx. I know it is diffcult for you, but try to make lucid points and can the ad hominems.

 

Repeat a lie often enough, eh Curtis? You know I called no one here a racist. As for Rush, I am not debating him' plus public figures are fair game.