Christian Faith v. Conservative Republican v. Free Markets

[Anonymous]

Oh please . . . Kerry sticking up for the middle class? You've been listening to too much democratic non-sense Wink

Fact is, in the USA, we vote who we feel would be the best candidate for president, and part of that is voting for the man that most represents your own belief systems. I disagree with Kerry on his economic policies (I'm a die hard capitalist), his foreign policies (I have no interest in any "global tests," and as far as I'm concerned the U.N. can just be disbanded), and I most certainly disagree with his social policies (gay marriage, abortion, etc.).

I was reading this over in the Bush v. Kerry debate just a few minutes ago. I thought it would be nice to raise this issue into a larger context, which I am doing now.

There's an inherent dicotomy between the Christian Fiath and Conservative Republicans that I've never quite understood. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard picked up on this issue a couple of years ago and wrote about it somewhat. Dittoheads might note that Fred Barnes is an editor of the Weekly Standard, the same people who put the "neo" in neo-con.

Basically, the rub is this: How can one justifiy their position as both a Christian and Conservative who believes in ltd gov't with respect to commerce? The goals of the two philosophies are opposed to one another. Chrsitianity itself calls for love and faith. It calls for people to give unto others. These features of Christianity I find very appealing. On the other hand, Conservativism calls for the call of the wild or the "last one standing wins". It's not quite a pure captialist system because in a purely captialist system we'd have more more competition. In our country, we don't have competition. We have oglopolies that frown on competing with they can and merge with each other when they can't.

Case in point, the reader above. The reader later advocates that if the person truely cared about the poor, the person would advocate a flat tax. A flat tax benefits the rich more than the lower class because the percentage of income taken does not progressively rise with the rise in income. The truth is that low income wage earners pay a 7.5% tax on all income and an add'l 10% on the first 15,000 or so. Switching to a flat tax of 20% for all wage earners would actually increase his burden. The tax would become more regressive, not less. I pay far more in taxes than most since I'm self employed. I get to pay a "self employment" tax of another 7.5% which I despise, even more so after Bush's proposal to cut social security payouts.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

How does conservatism call for "last man standing" in economics? And, it is a problem that we have what we do, we don't have pure competition....though what does this have to do with the question? I'm half confused, but, if the general question is how can you be a Christian who believes people have a right to keep the money they earn and not be forced to cough it up? Simple...they should of their own free will give it....this is not the case in general, yes I know-but if your arm is bleeding, you don't cut it off and toss it over to the government and have the government handle it....by forcing people to cough up the money. Still confused, but feel content...bye!

[Anonymous]

How does conservatism call for "last man standing" in economics? And, it is a problem that we have what we do, we don't have pure competition....though what does this have to do with the question? I'm half confused, but, if the general question is how can you be a Christian who believes people have a right to keep the money they earn and not be forced to cough it up? Simple...they should of their own free will give it....this is not the case in general, yes I know-but if your arm is bleeding, you don't cut it off and toss it over to the government and have the government handle it....by forcing people to cough up the money. Still confused, but feel content...bye!

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Our form of captialism is a constrained marketplace. Most industries are fairly consolidated into a few players in the market. Classical economics holds that the less competitors there are in a marketplace, the less competition and the higher price charged to buyers. Inherent, in this theory is marketplace control. Since a few players control a large portion of the marketplace, the have an expanded ability to exercise supply control over the price, rather than the demand side being the delimenting factor.

if the general question is how can you be a Christian who believes people have a right to keep the money they earn and not be forced to cough it up?

There's a couple of problems with this point. First off, you are required to give up money. Modern conservativism merely holds by which priority the money is to be distributed and to whom.

You mentioned in a prior thread, the example where Jesus told the rich man to sell off his assets and follow him. Where as, modern conservativism is about keeping as much assets as you can. One doctrine tells you to give up your money. The other doctrine advocates keeping it. You can not get a clearer dicotomy than this example.

I'll speculate that you'll counter with the argument that conservativism is not about keeping your money, but about being able to decide where to spend your money. Maybe by your definition, but certainly not our culture's. Modern conservativism is about wealth accumulation. You can not accumulate wealth when you give it to the poor, hence the dicotomy.

I'm really not the only one to see this. As I mentioned, the Weekly Standard discussed this topic a few years ago. So, the dicotomy I'm actually looking for an explanation on isn't coming from my own mouth, but from a fellow conservative's.

[August]

Case in point, the reader above. The reader later advocates that if the person truely cared about the poor, the person would advocate a flat tax. A flat tax benefits the rich more than the lower class because the percentage of income taken does not progressively rise with the rise in income. The truth is that low income wage earners pay a 7.5% tax on all income and an add'l 10% on the first 15,000 or so. Switching to a flat tax of 20% for all wage earners would actually increase his burden. The tax would become more regressive, not less.

Probably not the place to argue this, but you have a poor understanding of the fair-tax proposal. Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level will pay a tax of only 11.5 percent — a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

As for capitalism, you also seem to have a somewhat different understanding than I do. Under capitalism, everyone benefits from the system, as the richer people puts money into the economy that creates jobs, enabling those who do the manufacturing to also raise their standard of living. If we were to move to a completely socialist economy, like you seem to think the Bible advocates, everyone will essentially be poor, since you depend on government administration of the standard of living. I experienced this first-hand in Scandinavia, where I lived for a few years. The question then becomes who we trust to be dependant on, the government or the business owners?

The Bible tells us that we will earn a living by working hard, not by depending on the handouts of others. It also teaches that if people are in need, we are to help them as Christians, and not turn our back on them. Nowhere that I can recall is socialism taught, but sharing the wealth through earning as a reward for work is taught.

[Felgar]

One problem is that there are only 2 choices, so tradeoffs must be made. Is it a good idea to tax the rich a little heavier in order to look after the elderly, sick, and poor? I think most Christians would say yes. But destroying the family and murdering thousands of infants takes precedence over most fiscal matters.

So the concept is to elect a government that will protect the sanctity of marriage and ESSPECIALLY the sanctity of life and provide individuals with as much personal control over their finances as possible. And each person can then in turn help the poor as required. Bush understands that quite well - that's what the faith-based initiative is all about; making it easier for Christians (and others) to help each other.

If you look back 20 years and study American politics, what you may learn is that the Republicans were floundering after some extremely unsuccessful economic policies implemented by Reagan and little growth under Bush Sr. They survived because they aligned themselves with the Christian right, primarily with respect to abortion. That is the dominant issue; and much of the rest is peripheral.

[Dan]

The rich should be taxed the way they are right now, they are the ones that support the economy anyways, it's the middle and lower class that is the main consumer, but the rich set up businesses and provide jobs, the current system is fine the way it is.

However, outsourcing is a very big problem for the economy, people have to start getting higher educations to be able to find work, labor isn't a major part of the american job market anymore.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Our form of captialism is a constrained marketplace. Most industries are fairly consolidated into a few players in the market. Classical economics holds that the less competitors there are in a marketplace, the less competition and the higher price charged to buyers. Inherent, in this theory is marketplace control. Since a few players control a large portion of the marketplace, the have an expanded ability to exercise supply control over the price, rather than the demand side being the delimenting factor.

I hope I didn't sound like it, but I wasn't disagreeing on this point. If you have fewer companies, less competition, so there'll be not as much need to slash prices to get the best business...and service will go down as well, because if they don't like you, they have a few other choices, that's it.

I'll speculate that you'll counter with the argument that conservativism is not about keeping your money, but about being able to decide where to spend your money. Maybe by your definition, but certainly not our culture's. Modern conservativism is about wealth accumulation. You can not accumulate wealth when you give it to the poor, hence the dicotomy.

True, in our culture, people do keep their money instead of helping the poor. I read this one article about this guy who was so rich, he doesn't know what anything he buys cost, he doesn't care, he doesn't have to. He pays millions for a private plane to ferry his horse off to some far off vet, and some other crazy things. People like Nelly put bass speakers, encased in glass, in the bottom of their pool! Yes, it is very insane, and that kind of stuff is nothing but selfishness....but, as is said in Ecclesiastes, it's really to no avail. Vanity vanity all is vanity and chasing after the win.

Modern conservativism is about wealth accumulation. You can not accumulate wealth when you give it to the poor, hence the dicotomy.

There is no dichotomy. There is no wall of separation between "keep what you earn, do what you want with it" and "give to the poor." A friend of my told me about this guy who, in Houston, builds new communities, and he makes millions. He donates a truckload of it, though, to charity. I can't remember how much, but I think I was told 90% of what he makes. He's doing both. He's making money, he's deciding what to do with it, he's amassing wealth, BUT he's still giving to the poor and needy. He's just amassing wealth at a slower rate, but still, what's the point of having so much money? You can't really spend it all...unless you buy a country or something. If you make more money than you spend and donate, you're still accumulating.

[ochotseat]

I was reading this over in the Bush v. Kerry debate just a few minutes ago. I thought it would be nice to raise this issue into a larger context, which I am doing now.

There's an inherent dicotomy between the Christian Fiath and Conservative Republicans that I've never quite understood. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard picked up on this issue a couple of years ago and wrote about it somewhat. Dittoheads might note that Fred Barnes is an editor of the Weekly Standard, the same people who put the "neo" in neo-con.

Basically, the rub is this: How can one justifiy their position as both a Christian and Conservative who believes in ltd gov't with respect to commerce? The goals of the two philosophies are opposed to one another. Chrsitianity itself calls for love and faith. It calls for people to give unto others. These features of Christianity I find very appealing. On the other hand, Conservativism calls for the call of the wild or the "last one standing wins". It's not quite a pure captialist system because in a purely captialist system we'd have more more competition. In our country, we don't have competition. We have oglopolies that frown on competing with they can and merge with each other when they can't.

Case in point, the reader above. The reader later advocates that if the person truely cared about the poor, the person would advocate a flat tax. A flat tax benefits the rich more than the lower class because the percentage of income taken does not progressively rise with the rise in income. The truth is that low income wage earners pay a 7.5% tax on all income and an add'l 10% on the first 15,000 or so. Switching to a flat tax of 20% for all wage earners would actually increase his burden. The tax would become more regressive, not less. I pay far more in taxes than most since I'm self employed. I get to pay a "self employment" tax of another 7.5% which I despise, even more so after Bush's proposal to cut social security payouts.

There is no dichotomy. The higher tax brackets pay more taxes, so they are entitled to bigger tax returns. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is morally justified. Jesus Christ said it's better to teach lazy bums to earn a living than to give them handouts. If you don't like our mostly capitalist system, you are free to leave.

By the way, I've noticed you avoid the liberal label. I guess the liberals hate being called the L word more and more these days. I wonder why.

[Felgar]

I guess the liberals hate being called the L word more and more these days. I wonder why.

From that comment I take it you're Canadian? I really wish more people would fill in their locations fields.

[Anonymous]

There is no dichotomy. There is no wall of separation between "keep what you earn, do what you want with it" and "give to the poor." A friend of my told me about this guy who, in Houston, builds new communities, and he makes millions. He donates a truckload of it, though, to charity. I can't remember how much, but I think I was told 90% of what he makes. He's doing both. He's making money, he's deciding what to do with it, he's amassing wealth, BUT he's still giving to the poor and needy. He's just amassing wealth at a slower rate, but still, what's the point of having so much money? You can't really spend it all...unless you buy a country or something. If you make more money than you spend and donate, you're still accumulating.

This really isn't my idea here Kmart. Like I wrote before, I first heard about it from a self described neo conservative. I tried to google the article for a reference, but google doesn't list it. If any of you have access to weekly standard's archives, conduct the following search "conflict social fiscal conservative". One of the links should pull up the article if they still have it. The article itself is fairly old by web standards, we're talking about 1 to 2 years ago. I was just trying to get a perspective from honest members of the Christian community on the article and their thoughts on the conflict, but since you don't see any conflict or dicotomy, then there really isn't that much to discuss since you don't agree with what Fred Barnes wrote.

[ochotseat]

From that comment I take it you're Canadian? I really wish more people would fill in their locations fields.

No, but we're having more problems with our neighbors south of the border than above the other border.

As far as Arret's concerned, people should be allowed to keep more of what they earn despite paying higher taxes. If you'll notice, more and more countries are now abandoning their outdated socialist practices.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

From that comment I take it you're Canadian? I really wish more people would fill in their locations fields.

No, but we're having more problems with our neighbors south of the border than above the other border.

As far as Arret's concerned, people should not be allowed to keep more of what they earn despite paying higher taxes. If you'll notice, more and more countries are now abandoning their outdated socialist practices.

You seem to be advocating socialism, while then saying socialist practices are being abandoned...hhmm...lol. Which are you? You sound socialist. Socialism doesn't work if you are a socialist (doesn't work if you're not either though). It is a system of laziness.

[ochotseat]

From that comment I take it you're Canadian? I really wish more people would fill in their locations fields.

No, but we're having more problems with our neighbors south of the border than above the other border.

As far as Arret's concerned, people should not be allowed to keep more of what they earn despite paying higher taxes. If you'll notice, more and more countries are now abandoning their outdated socialist practices.

You seem to be advocating socialism, while then saying socialist practices are being abandoned...hhmm...lol. Which are you? You sound socialist. Socialism doesn't work if you are a socialist (doesn't work if you're not either though). It is a system of laziness.

Typo. You Canadians are smart enough to figure that out, right?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I'm American! I have an excuse! We have public school! It sucks!

[Anonymous]

I'm American! I have an excuse! We have public school! It sucks!

You DO live in Texas.... ;0)