Doublespeak and American Socialism

[Revmitchell]

It will be hard for Congressional Republicans to fight this socialist trend when their leadership in both Houses backed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s initial $700-billion Wall Street bailout.

“Mortgage Rates Fall as U.S. Expands Rescue” was the page-one headline in the November 26 Wall Street Journal. The story concerned a promise from federal officials to “pump” another $800 billion into the economy, bringing the grand total of the cost of various bailouts to something over $8 trillion. The term “rescue” is laughable but is used for the obvious purpose of confusing people about the calamity that has befallen our nation. If we’re not bankrupt now, we will be someday because we are being “rescued” by the federal government. This is the ultimate in what William Lutz, in his 1997 book of the same name, called “doublespeak.”

Ronald Reagan always warned of government officials who said they were there to help you.

I would have written that Journal story under the headline, “U.S. Plunges Deeper into Socialism.” But, of course, I’m biased.

It’s not fashionable these days to tell the truth about our financial and economic problems. The reason is simple¯the media want to keep the American people in the dark about what is happening to their country. It is a catastrophe of historical proportions. And the obvious danger is that the loss of political liberty will follow the loss of economic liberty.


More Here

 

[hillclimber1]

This march toward socialism is in full swing, and we're well on the way....Christiandom was the restraint against these things, until we lost our battle with Roe v. Wade....That, IMHO is where we ceased holding off the liberal agenda, and ever since then, we've marched steadily toward the liberal philosophy, with even the GOP following some years behind.

The Roe decision was an easily defeatable finding, that was based in faulty law, but we couldn't muster enough support to overturn... And that decision was something so against God, that we could not afford to lose...

 

[Crabtownboy]

This march toward socialism is in full swing, and we're well on the way....Christiandom was the restraint against these things, until we lost our battle with Roe v. Wade....That, IMHO is where we ceased holding off the liberal agenda, and ever since then, we've marched steadily toward the liberal philosophy, with even the GOP following some years behind.

The Roe decision was an easily defeatable finding, that was based in faulty law, but we couldn't muster enough support to overturn... And that decision was something so against God, that we could not afford to lose...

If you read the New Testament carefully you will find that the very early Christian church in Jerusalem was very socialist ... some might even say communistic ... communistic in the true sense of the word, not the political theory of Marx and Engles.

Acts 4:32 (King James Version)

32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Acts 2:44 (King James Version)

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

I am not defending Socialism but pointing out that it cannot be condemned using the NT.

 

[sag38]

Where in the N.T. does it say that the Church forced anyone to hand over their earnings in the form of a tax? What was occurring in the N.T. was by personal choice and not by government mandate.

Personally, I have no desire to hand over what I have earned to support a self-perpetuating welfare system. That is not Biblical. It's government sanctioned stealing.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Where in the N.T. does it say that the Church forced anyone to hand over their earnings in the form of a tax? What was occurring in the N.T. was by personal choice and not by government mandate.

Personally, I have no desire to hand over what I have earned to support a self-perpetuating welfare system. That is not Biblical. It's government sanctioned stealing.

I did not say government socialism. I said socialism or communistic in the true sense of the word. I did not say the church forced anyone. I only quoted the New Testament where it says they held all in common ... this is the root of communism ... all in common .... or, and they did not have this phrase, but it was the principle they were working at, "from each according to his ability and to each according to their need."

Acts 5:1-10 (New International Version)

Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

I suppose some would or could use this passage as evidence of force being used. I do not agree with that interpretation.

Now just because I point out that the very early church was very socialistic does not mean I believe in socialism or especially communism as voiced by Marx. Taken to their extreme, as in the early church, it simply does not work because of man's greed.

However, I do believe the church should take care of the social needs of people and I believe if the churches were doing their job that governments would not need social programs.

But, as I said the early church was very socialistic. Surely they were not capitalistic or democratic. The question becomes, are you willing to sacrifice and help your fellow Christians who are in need?

 

[J.D.]

I said socialism or communistic in the true sense of the word.

It was not socialism or communism in ANY sense of the word.

 

[LeBuick]

It was not socialism or communism in ANY sense of the word.

I thought it matched the definition...

common ownership of the means of production and property in general

I don't see anything in the definition that says the government has to be the instigator. I may have missed it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

 

[Crabtownboy]

It was not socialism or communism in ANY sense of the word.

Perhaps you would like the word communal-ism better. It is there in the NT, as plain as the sun shining on a cloudless day. It did not work then, and it will not work as long as man is greedy ... but it is there, like it or not.

 

[J.D.]

Perhaps you would like the word communal-ism better. It is there in the NT, as plain as the sun shining on a cloudless day. It did not work then, and it will not work as long as man is greedy ... but it is there, like it or not.

Having things in common can also describe a Corporation and a Co-operitive. There's no reason to assume that a central committee held title to the property, which would make it a true commune. You have to read that into the text.

 

[billwald]

SOCIALISM? YOU ALL GOTS TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are all so queer on socialism that you can't see the forest for the tree. The purpose behind this mess is the intentional destruction of the middle class.

 

[carpro]

If you read the New Testament carefully you will find that the very early Christian church in Jerusalem was very socialist ... some might even say communistic ... communistic in the true sense of the word, not the political theory of Marx and Engles.

Really?

I don't remember their leaders stealing from one person and giving it to another.