Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Moiraine said:
Hypocrite isn't the right word here. It just makes no sense. One of the two most essential figures in the whole religion seems to believe in socialism and Christians tend to conveniently completely ignore it or rail against it. It's just plain confusing.
Click to expand...


For someone who hates to have their words twisted, they sure seem to twist a lot of words. Weird!

 
Moiraine said:
I'm not quite sure this is true. The bottom half is, although I believe the US is going to reach a breaking point where things are too top heavy.

Socialist countries tend to have less economic disparity. The wealthy aren't as much richer than the poor as they are in capitalist socities. But overall they have less wealth.

I think there is a happy medium to be found that we haven't found yet. Certainly health care should be free and we can afford it if we're willing to not have tax policy that allows the rich to get richer, which they are already doing by buying politicians and policies. If we're going to let them have all the advantages in politics that allow them to screw people over if they desire, we shouldn't also let them have low taxes.

They have spent a lot of money to convince people to hate big government and be perfectly fine with corporations screwing them over and sometimes even poisoning and killing them.
Click to expand...




It's funny to me that many (most?) of the objections to more socialist policies are about money.  We're more concerned with the cash in our pockets than with helping our fellow man, and we use examples like the people who abuse the system as a reason not to explore socialism more - all while largely ignoring the abuses of capitalism while promoting it as an alternative to socialism.  It's why Paul's first letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:10) is such an important read for people who vote along the lines of their religious affiliations. 

 
alwayshusking said:
Socialism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work and is against human nature imo. Not sure what religion has to do with an economic system. Seems like an emotional plea. I'm non-religious fwiw. 

In Socialism, the people in government end up getting wealthy and and everyone else gets the scraps. At least with capitalism the big earners get a lot but the standard of living increases for everyone. Assuming the economy is good of course.

I'm not overly impressed in Cortez's brilliance at this point either. Her answers on Firing Line were not impressive to say the least. Looked like the left's answer to Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...


I think it all depends on what part of society you are talking about.

Police security, fire security, roads and infrastructure, public education.....are all areas where we all benefit greatly from a socialism.  I personally believe that healthcare needs to go in this direction.  If you look at other industrialized countries with socialized medicine, their healthcare is much much cheaper and actually better.  Their population is healthier.

Now, I do not agree with socialism when it comes to industry and private ownership of property and businesses.

The discussion needs to be what areas should be socialized and at what level....instead of if socialism or capitalism is better.  They both have their places in society.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I think it all depends on what part of society you are talking about.

Police security, fire security, roads and infrastructure, public education.....are all areas where we all benefit greatly from a socialism.  I personally believe that healthcare needs to go in this direction.  If you look at other industrialized countries with socialized medicine, their healthcare is much much cheaper and actually better.  Their population is healthier.

Now, I do not agree with socialism when it comes to industry and private ownership of property and businesses.

The discussion needs to be what areas should be socialized and at what level....instead of if socialism or capitalism is better.  They both have their places in society.
Click to expand...


I would agree with this. Maybe what we really need is a new breed of society that intentionally combines the best parts of other forms.  The best parts of capitalism, the best parts of socialism, the best parts of a democracy. Are there any good parts to Marxism? Probably none of that. :D

 
Yes, I would agree.  I've listened to enough talk radio over the years and know that those on the right would prefer pure capitalism as though it would be a panacea for all of society ills.   However, I have deep reservations that pure capitalism would work as an economic philosophy or pure conservatism would work as a governing philosophy.  I say that as a center right leaning person.  It is also true of socialism.   We have to get our spending priorities corrected and then I think the best of capitalism (revenue generation) could drive the wheels of the best in socialism (creating a safety net for all).   Stop the endless wars, don't mingle in other countries affairs, give time lines for our commitments to help countries (ie - Europe & Japan and Middle East should not need all of our military bases - we should be help them to be self sustaining and then get out.  Most of his is old WW2 policies - time to move on), decrease the power of the Military Industrial Complex which needs all of these bases overseas and wars to fund their corporate greed.  Root out medicare, welfare administrative deficiencies and fraud - true of all depts.  Privatize where it makes sense and where it does not diminish service (VA Hospitals for example - give medical insurance cards to vets to go to any hospital where they can find assistance in a more timely and efficient manner).    Modernize govt with technology.  As we all know, colleges and univs are being change by the advent of on line and remote classrooms. Why do we need everyone in DC anymore.  Why do we keep reinforcing the power driven structure.  Much govt business could be done remotely - thus reducing not only govt admin costs but also the graft involved with rubbing shoulders with lobbyists day in and day out which in turns affects true representative govt.  It may take a millennial President and Congress - someone(s) raised in the era of technology to have the vision to make this kind of drastic change. 

 
TGHusker said:
Yes, I would agree.  I've listened to enough talk radio over the years and know that those on the right would prefer pure capitalism as though it would be a panacea for all of society ills.   However, I have deep reservations that pure capitalism would work as an economic philosophy or pure conservatism would work as a governing philosophy.  I say that as a center right leaning person.  It is also true of socialism.   We have to get our spending priorities corrected and then I think the best of capitalism (revenue generation) could drive the wheels of the best in socialism (creating a safety net for all).   Stop the endless wars, don't mingle in other countries affairs, give time lines for our commitments to help countries (ie - Europe & Japan and Middle East should not need all of our military bases - we should be help them to be self sustaining and then get out.  Most of his is old WW2 policies - time to move on), decrease the power of the Military Industrial Complex which needs all of these bases overseas and wars to fund their corporate greed.  Root out medicare, welfare administrative deficiencies and fraud - true of all depts.  Privatize where it makes sense and where it does not diminish service (VA Hospitals for example - give medical insurance cards to vets to go to any hospital where they can find assistance in a more timely and efficient manner).    Modernize govt with technology.  As we all know, colleges and univs are being change by the advent of on line and remote classrooms. Why do we need everyone in DC anymore.  Why do we keep reinforcing the power driven structure.  Much govt business could be done remotely - thus reducing not only govt admin costs but also the graft involved with rubbing shoulders with lobbyists day in and day out which in turns affects true representative govt.  It may take a millennial President and Congress - someone(s) raised in the era of technology to have the vision to make this kind of drastic change. 
Click to expand...
This is intriguing.  Ben Sasse has 4 offices in Nebraska, plus DC.  Plus their time would be spent with constituents rather than "the swamp".   I kinda like it at first glance!

 
funhusker said:
This is intriguing.  Ben Sasse has 4 offices in Nebraska, plus DC.  Plus their time would be spent with constituents rather than "the swamp".   I kinda like it at first glance!
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.  If Trump really wanted to drain the swamp and if he was an astute business leader, he should see the advantages of moving us away from a brick based govt to one that is more flexible. While most of the alphabet soup agencies may need to remain in DC, our Congressmen could operate closer to home and represent us better.  Too many of these congressmen/women go to DC and think of themselves as little  kings and get sucked into the DC power machine and forget why they are there. 

 
Comfortably Numb said:
I guess I don't find it confusing at all. Maybe because socialism in the biblical sense is much different than political socialism. I believe in charity, helping the less fortunate etc. But when it comes to governments, politicians and forced sharing for the collective, I think history has shown us the downfalls of such a system. A person would have to severely spin the Bible to interpret that Jesus desired widespread political socialism. But yes many "Christians" do act in confusing ways when it comes to the welfare of their fellow man. Also many non-Christians but it isn't as easy to catagorize them into one tidy little group. Like most things the real problem is people in general but that doesn't drive division or seemingly provide any motive.
Click to expand...






I don't think giving to charity and helping the less fortunate is what people mean when they talk about Jesus and socialism.

knapp knows the Bible a lot better than I do but there is a parable where men do different amounts of work and they're upset that they get paid different amounts and the lesson is they shouldn't be upset.

I agree with what BRB said. We have socialist policies already with the fire dept, police dept, roads, and schools.

We absolutely should have free health care for all. I would argue it's more important and obvious than some of the above.

 
My internets are crappy so I can't edit.

What I meant to say above is the men are upset they all got paid the same amount for different amounts of work.

 
Moiraine said:
I don't think giving to charity and helping the less fortunate is what people mean when they talk about Jesus and socialism.

knapp knows the Bible a lot better than I do but there is a parable where men do different amounts of work and they're upset that they get paid different amounts and the lesson is they shouldn't be upset.

I agree with what BRB said. We have socialist policies already with the fire dept, police dept, roads, and schools.

We absolutely should have free health care for all. I would argue it's more important and obvious than some of the above.
Click to expand...


Moiraine said:
My internets are crappy so I can't edit.

What I meant to say above is the men are upset they all got paid the same amount for different amounts of work.
Click to expand...


I think people should at least mean some of both when referring to Jesus and socialism. Yes, I know to which parable(s) you are referring but I would argue that there are many more examples in the Bible of simply helping your fellow man. And to my knowledge there are no cases where Jesus promotes any government entity providing for the collective. Render to God what is God's and to Ceasar what is Ceasar's....(sumthin like that).

And I will admit, there are a few parables, stories, etc. in the Bible that I really do not like or subscribe to. The parable in question would be one of those. Another is the two sons, one of whom has gone out and pissed away his money while the other stayed at home and responsibly worked his tail off. (I'm paraphrasing here of course). But when the wayward son returns the father throws a big party, slaughters the fattened calf and welcomes him with open arms. Of course the "good" son is a little bent out of shape. I would be much like the good son in that story even as I realize the gist of the parable is that God will always welcome you back with open arms. I like that part of the message but my sense of fairness sympathizes more with the ticked off brother. I still view myself as a Christian and these aren't deal breakers or I wouldn't be but I really struggle with a few of the seeming injustices in Jesus's teachings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Moiraine Actually I don't know for sure to which parable you were referring. I don't recall one where people were paid differing amounts for the same amount of work. However, there is the parable of Talents where the master gives one servant 5, another 2 and the 3rd one 1. The first two go out and trade and double what he gave them and 3rd buries his in the ground so as not to lose it. The master is pissed at the 3rd servant so he takes his 1 talent and gives it to the motivated servant who grew his 5 to 10.  I like this one. Should we say the Bible promotes capitalism?

an excerpt-

He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or these thoughts from God. 

1 John 3:17, NIV: "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?


Luke 18:25 King James Version (KJV)


25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (NIV, 1 Timothy 6:17-19)

In Capitalism money is the measure of a man .The rich are to be adored and worshiped as the winners of the game .  I don’t think God agrees with that . There are also many , many verses I could post about compassion for your fellow man , helping the poor, equality,  etc which are socialistic ideas . 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Red 40 said:
Or these thoughts from God. 

1 John 3:17, NIV: "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?


Luke 18:25 King James Version (KJV)


25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (NIV, 1 Timothy 6:17-19)

In Capitalism money is the measure of a man .The rich are to be adored and worshiped as the winners of the game .  I don’t think God agrees with that . There are also many , many verses I could post about compassion for your fellow man , helping the poor, equality,  etc which are socialistic ideas . 
Click to expand...
I think your summary of what capitalism is a bit off, spun to fit the purpose and that the rich are to be adored and worshipped as winners is just more narrative. But yes there are limitless examples of helping your fellow man and those less fortunate in the Bible. I would argue that those are more examples of personal charity and caring rather than being some example of socialism.

If making money is so evil how do you explain the parable of the talents I mentioned above? How can the rich help the poor if becoming rich is evil? I'd be interested to see the Biblical reference that leads anyone to believe that what is desired is turning our money over to a government entity to redistribute to the needy.

Having said that, I am actually in favor of socialized healthcare at this point. Our capitalistic society has screwed it up so bad that I just see no other viable solution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top