Comments on: ★ Socialism is OK, as long as the money goes to the wealthy http://www.patloughery.com/2008/12/10/socialism-is-ok-as-long-as-the-money-goes-to-the-wealthy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=socialism-is-ok-as-long-as-the-money-goes-to-the-wealthy Pat Loughery's blog at the intersection of Christianity, culture and technology Wed, 23 May 2012 21:08:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Pat http://www.patloughery.com/2008/12/10/socialism-is-ok-as-long-as-the-money-goes-to-the-wealthy/#comment-757 Pat Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:33:57 +0000 http://www.patloughery.com/2008/12/10/socialism-is-ok-as-long-as-the-money-goes-to-the-wealthy/#comment-757 Thanks for the great comments, Justathought. I'm not trying to say that Republicans dont get it and Democrats do - heck, Barney Frank is enjoying having people lined up for miles outside his office so he can act as corporate Santa. Instead what I'm trying to say is that I'm concerned that as a nation, we've ignored the plight of those on the edges of our society and the global society, holding onto our great resources for our own prosperity. We've said we couldn't find the money to help the outcasts. But the moment that it looks as though our own prosperity was challenged, we found trillions and it's only a matter of how we want to spend it. My other concern is that Christianity is aligning itself with the mentality that we're responsible for ourselves and slighting those who are trying to find ways of helping those who cant help themselves. Broad strokes I know, but those are my concerns. Thanks for the great comments, Justathought.

I'm not trying to say that Republicans dont get it and Democrats do – heck, Barney Frank is enjoying having people lined up for miles outside his office so he can act as corporate Santa.

Instead what I'm trying to say is that I'm concerned that as a nation, we've ignored the plight of those on the edges of our society and the global society, holding onto our great resources for our own prosperity. We've said we couldn't find the money to help the outcasts. But the moment that it looks as though our own prosperity was challenged, we found trillions and it's only a matter of how we want to spend it.

My other concern is that Christianity is aligning itself with the mentality that we're responsible for ourselves and slighting those who are trying to find ways of helping those who cant help themselves.

Broad strokes I know, but those are my concerns.

]]> By: Justathough http://www.patloughery.com/2008/12/10/socialism-is-ok-as-long-as-the-money-goes-to-the-wealthy/#comment-756 Justathough Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:26:20 +0000 http://www.patloughery.com/2008/12/10/socialism-is-ok-as-long-as-the-money-goes-to-the-wealthy/#comment-756 As a conservative Christian, who voted for Dino Rossi and John McCain (although much, much more enthusiastically for Rossi than McCain), I think you hit on some good points, but have a few major flaws in your premises that lead you to some skewed conclusions. First and foremost, you assume that the Republicans are the ones behind the bailouts, when in fact, the Congressional Democrats are the ones who pushed for both the first bailout and now the one for the Auto Industry. Take a look at the following article. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120903055.html?hpid=topnews" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...</a> Read the first line: "The White House and congressional Democrats yesterday reached an 'agreement in concept' on a plan that would throw a government lifeline to the faltering Detroit auto industry..." Also, go back and take a look at why the first original bailout bill failed, but the second original one passed. It's not because Republicans came around to vote for it, but because more Democrats did once offered incentives for their districts the second time around. I completely agree with you that there is complete hypocrisy in corporate welfare while not promoting more aid for the poor, but there are a lot of Christian Republicans out there who don't support either, or support just aid for the poor. I personally am one that supports just poor aid, and not corporate, although welfare with the stipulation of responsible use. It's meant to enable those encountering hard times, not to promote a parasitic lifestyle. If large corporations are to ever recieve aid from the public sector (which I personally don't believe they should), it should be viewed through a similar lens. Companies should be forced to reform their business practices, fire the old/hire new leadership, and so on. They should be allowed it in hard times, and not expect it to feed their failing lifestyles. After all, there are thousands of people who also depend on the jobs provided by those corporations who would be seeking the second form of welfare if aid weren't provided... As a conservative Christian, who voted for Dino Rossi and John McCain (although much, much more enthusiastically for Rossi than McCain), I think you hit on some good points, but have a few major flaws in your premises that lead you to some skewed conclusions.

First and foremost, you assume that the Republicans are the ones behind the bailouts, when in fact, the Congressional Democrats are the ones who pushed for both the first bailout and now the one for the Auto Industry. Take a look at the following article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

Read the first line:

"The White House and congressional Democrats yesterday reached an 'agreement in concept' on a plan that would throw a government lifeline to the faltering Detroit auto industry…"

Also, go back and take a look at why the first original bailout bill failed, but the second original one passed. It's not because Republicans came around to vote for it, but because more Democrats did once offered incentives for their districts the second time around.

I completely agree with you that there is complete hypocrisy in corporate welfare while not promoting more aid for the poor, but there are a lot of Christian Republicans out there who don't support either, or support just aid for the poor. I personally am one that supports just poor aid, and not corporate, although welfare with the stipulation of responsible use. It's meant to enable those encountering hard times, not to promote a parasitic lifestyle.

If large corporations are to ever recieve aid from the public sector (which I personally don't believe they should), it should be viewed through a similar lens. Companies should be forced to reform their business practices, fire the old/hire new leadership, and so on. They should be allowed it in hard times, and not expect it to feed their failing lifestyles.

After all, there are thousands of people who also depend on the jobs provided by those corporations who would be seeking the second form of welfare if aid weren't provided…

]]>