ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

USA Becoming Socialistic

Is America moving toward socialism?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Relationships Quiz
 ---Moderator on 11/5/08
     Helpful Blog Vote (10)

Post a New Blog

Fortunately, Carrie, we have the Messiah to tell us to go the extra mile, and the Holy Spirit to remind us:

Ephesians 6:5-6 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ, Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

It is hard, but there will be reward.
---aka.joseph on 7/8/10

Why is it that Comrad Obama wants to limit the excessive pay of Wall Street Execs (which he personally authorized by sining his pork bill), but doesn't seem to mind the ginormous pay that basketball players and movie stars make?
---jerry6593 on 4/8/09

With what Obama and Democrats are doing,looks like we are heading in that direction. There's a big uproar over bonus payments to executives of the bailedout banks or Companies,I could understand that,but I don't understand why the Government Leaders,Obama etc,are trying to limit salaries of those people now. Chrysler has been ordered to merge with Fiat,an Italian Auto Maker before they can have anymore handout Money. That means $6 Billion will be going to a foreign Company too. Dictators are dangerous to free enterprise and with each step in that direction USA"s Freedoms are eroded and lost. There's frantic spending of Bailout money without wisdom before the money,which puts USA in a huge mountain of Debt,is handed out.
---Darlene_1 on 4/2/09

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan The commander of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Tuesday for a deadly assault on a Pakistani police academy and said the group was planning a terrorist attack on the White House that would "amaze" the world.

Baitullah Mehsud, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S., said Monday's attack on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore was retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
---Duane_Dudley_Martin_Jr. on 3/31/09

I have two kids, both college aged. I worry most for them. I know that many young people were caught up in the Obama rhetoric, but I hope that they soon see, that it is their future that is being mortgaged by trillions upon trillions of government debt that Obama (and previous presidents have encouraged or allowed).

Now in the last few weeks I have seen how Obama is floating the idea of mandatory public service for young kids. How rediculious. These kids will be saddled with their parent's and grandparent's national debt and then we are going to "heap more coals upon their heads" and require them to serve us as a part of some national public service to us who made them slaves to national debt?
---doug on 3/31/09

jerry6593's five Marxist tenets NOW describe our government completely!

How can we practice free enterprise when the government, or the president, has the power to fire the CEO of a private company and take over...not because of any illegal actions on the part of that company, but simply because of poor management.

Maybe companies will learn from AIG and GM not to ask a bail-out from government. Maybe they will begin to take advantage of the time-honored bankruptcy court, which was established to help floundering companies reorganize. This court is non partisan, non-political, and is willing to require renegotiation of union contracts if need be.
---Donna66 on 3/31/09

To get a better grasp of the question" is America moving toward socialism" reading what---doug has to say about this in his post is very helpful.
---mima on 3/30/09

Yes in the sense of ever increasing State Control. If 50% or more of your income is given over to taxes, and the state through its' policies limits your income, the U.S. is socialist. If you don't pay your property tax, and the state seizes your property - the society is socialistic. Most of the 'isms' are greedy and tend to bad autocrasy, or the reign of the Antichrist, the only good governance will be a theocracy under the Lord Jesus Christ: Psalms 2:9 / Revelations 2:27, 11:17.

To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. -Glenn
---Glenn on 3/30/09

Communist dictatorships, do not allow for freedom of choice,.
I never said I support Obama. I just point out the obvious differences between communism and socialism. Obama will never take away private ownership of property or the existence of private companies. The reason communism failed was because the government owned the farms, factories, and all the housing. You keep implying that countries with socialized medicine and capitalistic free enterprise are "communist". They are not. Look at it this way: we will help pay for medical care of others one way or another. If only through product cost as in new car purchases where the company pays for the medical care.
---obewan on 3/30/09

Obe: The difference between the early Christians and the today's Communists is the matter of freewill choice. Christianity, having the character of God, allows the individual to CHOOSE whether or not he wishes to give to another. Communist dictatorships (like the one Obama is trying to establish), do not allow for freedom of choice, but rule by the cruel imposition of the force of the state. This is the character of Satan's kingdom - the kingdom of force. If this is this the sort of government you prefer, then you have gone over to the DARK SIDE.
---jerry6593 on 3/28/09

My Bible tells me to stay completely away from the DARK SIDE and move fully to the RIGHT.
And I hope you realize the early house church Christians were true "communists" (since my Bible clearly says they held all things in common) until the "other" communists came along and ruined the meaning of the word "communist". I think some socialist nations still make room for capitalism. I mean, you have nations with socialized medicine, and they have corporations like BMW that are not owned by the government, so there clearly are shades of gray.
---obewan on 3/27/09

Obe: Sure I understand "spectrum." But we're not talking electromagnetic wavelength here. You would have us believe that there are shades of gray between Capitalism and Communism, and that an approach to the DARK SIDE is perfectly acceptable. Do you also believe that there are shades of gray between good and evil, and that a little evil is perfectly acceptable? My Bible tells me to stay completely away from the DARK SIDE and move fully to the RIGHT.

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
---jerry6593 on 3/27/09

Obewan: "Where did you go to school? You obviously do not understand the difference between communism and socialism." USF - Physics degree. What is the source of your education? Judging by your name, it is probably Star Wars comics.
Good you have a physics degree. Surely you undestand the meaning of the word spectrum then. Communism is at the far end of the spectrum. Medium "socialism" is near the middle of the spectrum. There is still a HUGE difference between "big government" with private ownership of homes, and communism with government ownership of private homes.
---obewan on 3/25/09

Obewan: "Where did you go to school? You obviously do not understand the difference between communism and socialism." USF - Physics degree. What is the source of your education? Judging by your name, it is probably Star Wars comics.

Karl Marx, in his Cummunist Manifesto, taught:

(1) Class Warfare - the pitting of the poor against the rich.
(2) The "nationalization" of private industry.
(3) That individual rights are secondary to the collective.
(4) That government - not the private sector - is the answer to economic woes.
(5) The greater the centralized power, and the more intrusive into private life, the better.

These doctrines have been demonstrated by the Obama administration.
---jerry6593 on 3/25/09

European countries have socialist governments... not dictatorships, but heavy-handed governments that intrude into almost all areas of life.

They have not failed, but their economies aren't thriving.

FEW businesses are totally privately owned. Gasoline is 10 dollars a gallon... Few people own a house...most live in small apartments. The tax rate in Denmark is 60% and European counties are near it. They haven't had unemployment as low as that in the US for years. Health care decisions are made by bureaucrats.

Many citizens are simply resigned, but
I have talked to Brits, Swedes and Kiwi's who
came here to escape the coercive governments they lived under. In this country they say they like the individual liberty.
---Donna66 on 3/23/09

I see socialism and communism as just degrees along a spectrum. As to pointing to countries like France and Germany. France is hardly an ideal to look to, though it may not be outright disaster. It has typically had twice the unemployment rate of the US, and a slower economic growth rate, etc. As for Germany remember they were rebuilt after WWII at our taxpayer's expense, then were largely banned from spending money on the military, while we expended taxpayer money to protect them. In essence we gave them free national defense at the expense of our taxpayers to some extent, the same could be said of Canada. Socialism in minor amounts is like poison in minor amounts, it may harm you but probably won't kill you.
---doug on 3/23/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

All of you socialist wannabes should look at the socialist utopia that is Cuba. Even Russia and China have found that socialism doesn't work and have adopted capitalistic systems. (Jerry)
Where did you go to school? You obviously do not understand the difference between communism and socialism. All the countries you cite are communist. For socialist LEANING countries, try Canada, France, Germany, etc...So far, they have not failed as you suggest. And the USA still has private ownership of business, not government ownership as would be the case in pure hard core socialism.
---obewan on 3/23/09

Yes, and quickly. It is Obama's plan (and that of his "business-challenged" cohorts).
He said when campaigning that he
wanted to spread the wealth around.

Because of this, he will have great difficulty in "reviving" the economy. He cannot revive a capitalist economy using socialist means. If he thought that a "gov't bail-out", which is NOT capitalism, could get credit flowing, he was wrong. If AIG HAD failed, there would have been some shuffling of assets...NO disaster.

The public humiliation of AIG will cause businesses to cut, not only bonuses, but also hiring and expansion. Motivated by fear of punitive taxation, they will behave in a ways that only feed, not relieve, recession.
---Donna66 on 3/20/09

In spite of the gloomy picture I just painted, there my be a bright side. Obama is still planning trillions more dollars of debt for us.

Regardless of party, I believe sensible citizens, with a grasp of reality, MAY begin to balk. Most people realize that unlimited debt without adequate means of repaying, is not wise policy for anyone. Hopefully more people are now realizing that government money is taxpayers' money and comes from your pockets and mine...OUT with BAIL-OUTS!
---Donna66 on 3/20/09

Donna: I commend your grasp of the basics of economics. Socialism does not work because it destroys incentive. (Why should I work hard when I can only achieve the same level as those who refuse to work?) All of you socialist wannabes should look at the socialist utopia that is Cuba. Even Russia and China have found that socialism doesn't work and have adopted capitalistic systems.

To answer the Mod's question: Yes! The current crop of econo-terrorists that now control Washington DC are driving us at full speed toward the abyss of socialistic economic collapse.
---jerry6593 on 3/20/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

The other thing that many people don't understand is that our economy is not a "zero sum game". In other words the economy can grow if people are free to discover, invent, improve, work and then most importantly be able to benefit from discovering, inventing, improving and working.

So what can happen is that though we might argue over who should get how much of the pie, if as a free society, we go to work and use wisdom, while we are working, the pie is growing bigger. So, if we are only getting 1/10th of the pie, our one tenth will end up being bigger.
---Doug on 3/19/09

Yes, doug, well said. What many people fail to recognize about capitalism is that AS the rich get richer..the poor get richer.
A man works hard to build a successful business. And in so doing, he provide jobs for others...a chance to learn and practice skills that can make them more successful,too.
The man's business grows because, knowing he can fail (without a bail-out), and because of competition,he keeps working harder and smarter.

The chief fallacy of socialism is assuming that every circumstance in life is due mainly to luck! Diligence and talent are not encouraged.
---Donna66 on 3/18/09

It doesn't matter.

A christian is a christian no matter what type of government. But a socialist government will not tolerate christians. Denominational "churches" will be under their control. A christian will have a different lifestyle, an underground lifestyle following the underground christian railroad. We must learn from christians who live in this type of government (for example, China and Russia) like learning to meet in private and not conform to a denominational church. (do an online bibles search for "one another," "each other," and "encourag.")

This will happen because God is to lift the veil of protection from America because we have denominational christians, not true christians.
---Steveng on 3/18/09

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer only if our government refuses to uphold normal laws of justice. In a free society, the rich buy services and goods from others (including the poor). There is competition, so if one rich person isn't paying enough, you can go to another rich person that will pay more. Freedom ensures that you're paid the highest you are worth. However if the rich are allowed to collude (which is usually done through a government that they can bribe and control) then they can artificially hold down the worker's wages (like in Russia). In Russia they said it was socialism run for the benefit of the proletariat, but the workers just across a border in a free country were paid several times what Russian workers were.
---doug on 3/17/09

Send a Free Special Occasion Ecard

Would somebody show proof of the supposition that as the rich grow richer, the poor become poorer? I hear this sentiment expressed a lot here, but is it true?
The history of this country seems to prove otherwise. Here, the middle class has become increasingly prosperous over the years. They now own many things that only the wealthy could afford a generation ago. Even the "poor" in this country usually have some things that were once luxeries. They aren't "poorer", esp. as compared to the "poor" in many countries.

This would be impossible if inevitably, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". And the U.S.A wouldn't have a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world.
---Donna66 on 2/11/09

Actually, Capitalism is the exact opposite of greed and selfishness. Capitalism is the result of one person willing to fill a need or provide a service to somebody else. Money is freely paid in exchange for the service. It is just and honorable.

Liberal Socialism, however, is based in selfishness and greed. People believe they have a right to money and property that somebody else has earned, so they pass laws to take that property and give it to themselves and their friends in exchange for essentially nothing. Liberals long to control the behavior of others and micromanage everything, i.e. Obama and his gang dictating how much people can earn, how companies spend money and trying to frighten citizens in order to expand Government.
---ralph7477 on 2/9/09

Capitalism does not work because of GREED! It works because of SELF-PRESERVATION.

Residents of early Plymouth Colony formed a community in which all worked for the common good.From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The people nearly starved.

Workers grew fewer and worked less because they were provided for regardless of their own efforts.Those who did work hard, resented supporting those who didn't.

Only when Gov. Roger Williams gave each man some land for which he alone was responsible, did the colony begin to thrive. The people weren't "greedy". They gave to others voluntarily.But they took pride in their ability to care for themselves and their family That's capitalism.
---Donna66 on 2/8/09

Where there is the potential for power and money there will be greedy individuals. I do believe that there need to be laws and reasonble regulations. We need to also understand that neither power, nor money, nor greed go away if we then shift this towards government, it only makes the greedy more likely to corrupt and infiltrate government. Our safest refuge is by living by God's laws of righteousness, and then holding our business and political leaders accountable to reasonable laws, rather than allowing them to operate outside or above the law as has become common practice.
---doug on 2/7/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

capatialism works because by nature people are greedy.we call it capitalism but its really greed.
---tom2 on 2/6/09

Capitalism works for many reasons but ones which can be postive not negative are experience,knowledge,wisdom. People experience having nothing or near nothing and all hardships which go with it. After such an experience they learn to work harder and have more,to live better. Seeing hard work can bring a better life they aspire to do or be their best,by sodoing become well off which by any standards is better than being poor. Now by the experience came knowledge,with knowledge grew wisdom,in turn brought the conclusion,more is better,less is worse,money helps and poverty hurts. Being without feels bad,living easy feels good. We are hardwired by God,all creatures are,for selfpreservation and even an animal knows full feels better than empty.
---Darlene_1 on 1/11/09

Most of our health problems stem from our way's of life & the cities in which w live in...
---Duane_Dudley_Martin on 11/25/08

Rereading some of these blogs, I came across this posting... I have to admit that for once, I agree with DDM!!
---NurseRobert on 1/9/09

Capitalism works for two reasons: Fear and greed.

Fear motivates most people to work and struggle to acquire the things they need for themselves and their families.

Greed comes along and makes excess aquisition a "god". But that often creates excess in the form of cheaper goods and services that benefit everyone.

However, when greed goes to far, a few people end up with just about everything, and most with little or not enough.

At that point government must step in and find ways to moderate that greed...
---atheist on 12/16/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

Socialism? what about too much freedom? look at what is happening right now in financial institutions - greed & corruption is rampant.

it does not mean when freedom is regulated it is socialism. regulation helps in maintaining order & enforcement of the law.
---mike on 12/16/08

Donna ... Denationalisation occurs here when the government wishes to raise money, and it sells the business on the stock exchange.

The business is generally more efficient when run by private companies than when run by government.

But when a business fails, sometimes it can be rescued by nationalisation

The famous Rolls Royce company failed, was nationalised, and then sold back, and now is one of the world's leading (and here we would say the best!) manufacturers of jet engines
---alan_of_UK on 12/16/08

Alan of UK ...That's interesting. What caused the government to "de-nationalize"?
Did some private parties ask to buy the company? Did the government put it up for sale?
In this country, the government resists privitizing any of its' functions. I can't imagine any nationalized service (especially if removed from private ownership) becoming more efficient under governmental management. Few Government officials here know much, if anything, about running a business. They are notorious for wasting money.
---Donna66 on 12/15/08

Donna ... The government has not given the companies back to the previous owners, because either they paid for them when they took them over, or the companies were worthless by the time they were nationalised.

The comanies are sold back to memebrs of the public at the value they have when they are denationalised
---alan_of_UK on 12/11/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting

Alan of UK--
>>there are numerous cases in the UK where companies have been nationalised to enable them (and the employment) to be put in order ... and then they have been returned to private ownership<<
I hope it works that way here in the US.

I don't think I've ever seen government "return" anything to private ownership. But nationalizing companies is a rare and, until recently, rather undesirable,concept here. I know it's acceptable in the UK and Europe. But not everyone here wants to emulate that. (Ireland, however, has won the admiration of a number of Americans, for it's policies toward business)

Actually, auto companies here may get a LOAN from the government. But if they don't repay...then what?
---Donna66 on 12/10/08

Miche ... You should read more facts about Anne Boleyn.. Indeed she was pregnant when she was married to Henry, and it was before the divorce was
But the record shows that hse resisted Henry's advances until the divorce was agreed.
And it is highly unlikely she had those alleged liasons for which she was executed.

So, whilst not perfect ... not a wh...
---alan_of_UK on 12/9/08

I think when the governement has to bail private companies out of debt, um yep we may be headed in that socialist direction.
frances...unjustly treated?
her people were STARVING TO DEATH because of her and her husband, King Louis' lavish lifestyle. She was wearing expensive dresses when she should have been telling her husband "FEED YOUR PEOPLE"
Anne Boleyn was a manipulative wh**e. Lord forgive me for that but it is truth.
She was NOT a virgin when she married Henry the 8th and she stole him from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Entreating Him to commit adultry against his wife. Do you think that adultry is good? by no means. It is wrong.
Learn your history before you start making statements like that.
---miche3754 on 12/9/08

Frances ... you are probably right about MA.
and that saying.

But as for her and AB being the most unjustly treated in history ... surely that is an exaggeration?

And whilst MA may have been unjustly treated BY history, for what she was alleged to say, I don't see AB as being unjustly treated by history?

---alan_of_UK on 12/9/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

Next to Anne Boleyn, Marie Antoinette most be one of the most unjustly treated women of world history. I bet she never even said that. She was a charitable lady, and a victim of black psychological operations on her character.
---frances008 on 12/8/08

athiest, I like the analogy "let them eat cake"- Marie Antoinette, during french revolution.
But- this statement is true.
Then what will our government do?
They have become selfserving instead of serving the people.
We have examples through out history of what happens to countries, or empires that this happens to.
They fall apart.
Are we headed for that too?
It makes me wonder if this is rreally what is happening.
I hope what alan says is right. That the gov will just help then return the companies to private ownership.
---miche3754 on 12/8/08

US towards socialism? Bush axked congress to $700 BILLION to bailout AIG, financial institutions. the big 3 is axking for a handout using taxpayers money. it is socialism if the taxpayer axed for it but if big business (using taxpayer money) axked for it, it is not but a bailout. is it hypocrisy.
---mike on 12/8/08


Watching the news I think I'm starting to agree with many here. The threat of socialism is now great.

Before we know it the government will be handing out free bread to the poor.

Let them eat cake!
---atheist on 12/6/08

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

How can anybody claim that we spend twice as much money on waging war than we do on charity?

2008 Federal Defense Budget: $650 billion.

2008 Federal Entitlement programs: $1.5 Trillion. This figure doesn't even include Foreign Aid or all the giveaways in the various agencies such as HUD, Dept. of Education, etc. This only counts money given away by the Federal Government.

Add in all the programs administered by various State, County and local governments. Then add in all the individual giving by citizens to churches, charities and aid organizations, or simply person to person.
---ralph7477 on 12/6/08

Donna ... "No question about it. Any time the government takes ownership of private enterprise (as in the bank bail-out or the airlines bail-out or the present Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac) it is a move toward Socialism."

Not necessarily ... there are numerous cases in the UK where companies have been nationalised to enable them (and the employment) to be put in order ... and then they have been returned to private ownership.

Our present (UK) bank bail-outs with the government taking huge stakes in banks are intended in due couse for the sale back to the market of those shares
---alan_of_UK on 12/6/08

We spend twice as much money per person in waging war as we do in charity. What does this say about this country?
---StrongAxe on 12/3/08
What it says is that war is very, very expensive. That is all it says.
---Donna66 on 12/5/08


There was an article in the Salon on Sept 6, 2007 titled "Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction":

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Later, two former senior CIA officials corroborated this.
---Strongaxe on 12/5/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

No question about it. Any time the government takes ownership of private enterprise (as in the bank bail-out or the airlines bail-out or the present Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac) it is a move toward Socialism.

Now it's the auto companies wanting help... and there will be others on their heels. Hey, why try to work out a way to succeed, when Uncle Sam stands ready to fix things.
(The feds may call it a "loan", but when was the last time they got reimbursed?)

A capitalist country would allow companies to fail if they cannot compete (the finance industry being a possible exception) or to take bankruptcy which gives a business time to remedy their own deficiencies.
---Donna66 on 12/5/08

"The US went to war against Iraq (that Bush KNEW had no WMDs)."-Strongaxe.

I must have missed the announcement. When did the President admit that he knew all along that there were no WMDs? That would be the only way you could possibly know what knowledge at had at the time.
---ralph7477 on 12/5/08

Larry thanks for that "God Bless" I gladly take it and right back to you also thanks for the added info,its interesting. No you can't buy a trip to Heaven or peace on earth. Right now I think we all would be wise to pray for the end of the Recession around the World or no one will have anything to give. In America I know Business after Business are laying off 100s and even 1000s of workers and many large businesses are downsizing and closing over 100 stores. All the people who lost jobs and business need our prayers. I keep quoting the verse to myself "I've never seen the righteous forsaken or their children out begging for bread",God always comes through when people pray in faith.
---Darlene_1 on 12/5/08


The US went to war against Iraq (that Bush KNEW had no WMDs). The US did NOT go to war against North Korea (that Bush knew DID have nuclear weapons). but Iraq had oil and North Korea did not. So this was NOT a "war on terror".

Both Iraq and North Korea are secular states, but North Korea more so, since communism is an avowedly atheistic system.

So the war in Iraq is NOT a "war against the Antichrist" either, as much as a war designed to stabilize America's oil interests (strange how Bush and Cheney's oil buddies have gotten the contracts to rebuild the country afterwards). It's aboute purely secular financial issues.
---StrongAxe on 12/5/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Darlene and Strongaxe,
God bless you both. The most generous countries in terms of giving to foreign nations per capita are in order...
and the Netherlands.
Too bad the giving alone won't get them into heaven.

In the list of list the only category for which the U.S. leads is computer piracy.

BTW, as long as there is Wall Street and oil companies the U.S. will never been socialistic.
---larry on 12/4/08

Strongaxe,thanks for crunching the numbers for me,I'm not so good with math. Those specific per person amounts is what I was wondering about. I think the twice as much figure says we are either very wise "heading them off at the pass" or very scared not to fight,maybe a little of both. Alan thanks,the Billions I gave are only the sums each Country sends overseas for development not the overall giving to Charities in the Countries. What that indicates is the UK sends 13% of all their Charity money overseas whereas the US only sends 3% so take the total giving in US of 295 Billion and multiply by 3% and get how much in all US sends overseas. The 3.2 U.S.,0.7 UK is the per person. Whew figures blow my mind!
---Darlene_1 on 12/4/08

We spend twice as much money per person in waging war as charity. What does this say about this country?
---StrongAxe on 12/3/08

It cost a lot to fight anti-christ so we can continue blessing the world.

When we stop ...

39 Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, of the dew of heaven above,

40 by thy sword shalt thou live, shalt serve thy brother,it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

41 Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand, then will I slay my brother Jacob.
---Trav on 12/4/08


It's true that in bad economies, people are forced to do anything (just look at the great depression). However, it isn't during such times that people flock here from other countries, but rather during times of prosperity, and you have to admit that America has been fairly prosperous ever since the end of the Great Depression (excepting the past few years).
---StrongAxe on 12/4/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

My son's grandmother is German. When she came here with her husband about 34 years ago, she could'nt speak a bit of English. Now, why have we started accomodating Spanish speaking when we don't accomodate any other? To me this is not fair or just.

As for migrant workers and Americans not be willing to do those jobs-
Look at the economy, do you think they are gonna say NO now, since people have to feed their families?
That is the biggest propblem here in America- everybody thinks they are too GOOD to do regular work.
That is just hogwash. I am a single mom and I do what is needed to support my children through the grace of GOD.
---miche3754 on 12/4/08


One reason any many areas of the country are bilingual (for example, English and Spanish) is NOT because of the large number of illegal aliens, but because of the large number of LEGAL aliens and CITIZENS of foreign extraction (mostly Mexican and Cuban).

Also, for any transaction, you need BOTH supply and demand. There wouldn't be so many illegal aliens here if people didn't need them. Migrant workers (some legal, some not) do many jobs that American citizens are unwilling to do (pick tobacco and citrus, clean hotel rooms, etc.)
---StsrongAxe on 12/3/08


I just crunched some numbers (a country's total giving is not nearly as important as its PER CAPITA giving), but even then, it seems like you are correct (around $1000 in the US, $200 in the UK, and $90 in Japan).

However, this also brings up a disturbing statistic: Americans give around $1000 per capita to charity. However, the war in Iraq alone cost each one of us around $2000.

We spend twice as much money per person in waging war as we do in charity. What does this say about this country?
---StrongAxe on 12/3/08

Darlene ... "In 2006 US gave $23.53 Billion in Development Aid alone,UK next $12.46 Billion"

On that data, the UK is many times more generous, for it indicates that the UK gives more than half as much as the USA, whereas our population is of a much smaller proportion. So I don't think that can be accurate!

"USA gives 3.2% of income per person and UK gives 0.7%" Not sure what this means ... do you mean % of natioanl income?

My info related I think to the amount given privately by individuals, rather than by the state, so my statement was grammatically incorrect ... sorry!
---alan_of_UK on 12/3/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

Alan could you please tell me where you got your information about America "the amount given per head of population is not the greatest". What I found says America's total of all giving in USA,public/aid and private is more than the other 21 richest countries added together,don't know how accurate it is. Other sources report in 2006 the total giving in USA was $295 Billion. In 2006 US gave $23.53 Billion in Development Aid alone,UK next $12.46 Billion,Japan $11.19 Billion. UK 13% of all giving goes overseas compared to USA's 3% goes overseas but USA gives 3.2% of income per person and UK gives 0.7%. Couldn't find a list of all Countries to compare.
---Darlene_1 on 12/3/08

I agree, Ktisophilos
But answer me this-
Why is the USA the only modern country that does not offer nation wide health care for its people?
France, Italy, Germany, and others offer it to their citizens.(not sure if England does or not, can someone answer that for me?)
Anyway, Why can't we(USA)?
Also, I really believe we should stop catering to illegal aliens.
We live in an English speaking country and everything should be English.
Why are we accomodating illegal aliens on this?
---miche3754 on 12/3/08

Strongaxe, let's not kid ourselves. From ancient times to the present, it all boils down to money. You talk about greedy corporations. Nobody forces customers to buy products from corporations. Nobody is forced to work for a certain corporation.

You would like to have Government control wealth and commerce rather than private citizens in a free market. This is happening before our eyes so you should be happy. Why don't you ever think of the Government as greedy? Government produces nothing of value, it takes and wastes money that citizens have earned. The new Capital Visitors Center in DC has just been completed $550 million over budget and 3 years behind schedule. Hope you enjoy having these folks running the health system.
---ralph7477 on 12/3/08

StrongAxe, it doesn't help the poor to screw the rich. Making the rich die on waiting lists equally with poor people is hardly the answer to improve health care in general.

As Reagan said, government is more often the problem than the solution. It certainly applies to massive government health bureaucracies.

America should certainly not go the way of Canada and Britain where there is equal sharing of misery.
---Ktisophilos on 12/2/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Software


OK, now I KNOW something odd is going on, it isn't just me being senile, because I DID double-check to make sure I spelled your name right (without the missing leading 'r') in the previous post, yet it sometimes disappeared anyway.
---StrongAxe on 12/3/08

Ralph ... "They call on America because they know that our Capitalistic system has produced the most prosperous and giving society of people on the planet"

Actually, they are not the most giving, except in total quantity from a huge nation.

The amount given per head of population is not the greatest.
---alan_of_UK on 12/2/08


(Sorry for misspelling your name - sometimes when I copy, the first letter gets chopped off and I don't notice before posting).

How is that ridiculous? Pure unbridled capitalism without any compassion leads to the kind of society that existed in Great Britain during the industrial revolution, and described in David Copperfield - and also in the United States in the 19th century. Large greedy companies that treat workers like slaves while rolling in the profits. (Look at black slaves in the south, or white coal miners in the north).

Fortunately, this has been tempered in the US by Christian sensibilities brought here by the founding fathers.
---StrongAxe on 12/2/08

Strongaxe: Your argument about the Christians and Social Darwinism is dead on right. You hit the nail on the head when it comes to the analogy of the bird being left to die. Keep up the good fight, though I believe that with some on this blog, it is futile to try to educate them. Remember, ignorance is bliss.
---Trish9863 on 12/2/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

Strongaxe, you've made some ridiculous statements before but your last post takes first place.

Thanks to Capitalism and Liberty, the USA has been able to help more people at home and abroad than any nation that has ever existed. The USA has more charities and benevolent organizations than any other country. Who do foreign nations appeal to for help when disaster strikes? They call on America because they know that our Capitalistic system has produced the most prosperous and giving society of people on the planet.

For you to paint the picture that our (former) Capitalistic system simply lets the unfortunate die in the street demonstrates your woeful immaturity.
---ralph7477 on 12/2/08

Since when did democracy become socialism?

I think we should apply God's Word to everything we do in this Country.
We are suppose to love God with our ALL.
We are suppose love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
If all of us did this, what would this come to? Christian Socialism? (I am asking a question so please don't get upset)
There should be none that are rich if it is not for the glory of God.
The love of money is the root of evil.

As for the question asked- as long as we have representation(its a farce right now)
We will continue to be a democracy and not socialist.
---miche3754 on 12/2/08


That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is this:

Once the chick hatches, if it falls out of the nest, capitalism will let it die on the ground, while socialism will pick it up and nurse it back to health.

I find it ironic that evangelical Christians are often the ones who scream the loudest when Darwin is invoked in biology, but who are also the strongest supporters of social Darwinism when it is applied to economics. (in much the same way that they are often pro-life while supporting capital punishment.)
---StrongAxe on 12/2/08

The underlying reason for this move toward socialism is that we, as a society, have become a bunch of whiny, spoiled babies who can't stand the thought of facing any problems or any sort of struggle in life, and we start to cry when things aren't fair, just as nursery school children do. It's really quite nauseating.

If you see a baby chick struggling and fighting to hatch out of it's egg, what should you do? The Liberal socialistic tendency would be to crack the egg for the chick so it can emerge easily. The problem is that the chick will soon die because it never built up the needed strength and endurance it needs to survive outside the shell, which it would have developed if only it were left alone to fend for itself.
---ralph7477 on 12/2/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

No...we're not moving to socialism. Mystery Babylon in Revelations shows the worldly outcome of materialism...the fullness of greed. 'Socialism' and being our 'brother's keeper' are clearly separate subjects. Socialism is practiced by governments of the 'world' and is based in the greedy control of wealth. Loving our neighbor and being our brother's keeper...even the unlovable based in the heart of God through the temple He indwells...His true Church. We are 'in' the world but not 'of' the world. A Democrat who voted for Obama, I believe in government doing all it can to help the 'widows' and 'fatherless' in their afflictions. But what a shame on the church that government generally does much more than those called by His name.
---internetelias on 12/2/08


You seem to have hit the key point:

Socialism without Christ is a bad thing.
Socialism with Christ is a bad thing.
Capitalism without Christ is a bad thing.
Capitalism with Christ is a bad thing.

So, the benefits of a particular economic system are less important than the underlying values and beliefs that are the foundation upon which they are based.
---StrongAxe on 12/2/08

KTISOPHILOS, that quote from Churchill answers about every question raised on this blog, nice work.

Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

The original question is biased within the assumption that becoming socialist would be a bad thing. Socialism without Christ is the bad thing because it suppresses the right to worship. Socialism within a convent of Christians probably worked very well in an agrarian society. It falls flat however in an industrial and hi-tech society of the Western World.
---larry on 12/1/08

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.