Socialism is a buzzword that I avoid, but I'm skeptical of the government having a vested interest in controlling executive pay beyond a red meat policy to stir up some good old class resentment.
That said, taxing the rich more and closing all the obscene loopholes in the tax code, I have no problem with. Nor would I object to requiring pay cuts at salaries above a certain level before laying off workers for financial reasons or being offered financial assistance.
The current income gap between executives and workers is obscene, immoral, harmful to society, and contrary to every word ever spoken by the prophets... but, I can't think of an effective or a legal way to correct it, short of true socialism (and not the imaginary "socialism" bandied about by politicians who have no idea what the word actually means).
It would be the fascism form of socialism if the company was supposedly privately owned. It would be the communist form of socialism if the company was supposedly owned by the state. In both cases "the state" determines who gets what and in both cases and "the state" is just a bunch of elite sinners that wield ultimate power and rewards their friends and punishes their enemies.
I wouldn't mind Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg being rich if they were just rich instead of rich and evil.
The "income gap" itself is not evil, it's how the people with wealth use their wealth that can be good or evil.
For example:
1 Kings 10:23 King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.
Solomon was not resented by his people because he used his great wealth to bolster his people.
He wasn't resented by his people? Read your Bible. As soon as Solomon was dead, the people couldn't wait to tear the kingdom away from his heir, and thus the lasting split between Judah and Israel.
And income inequality does do enormous harm to the economy and society. Economists have been pointing this out for decades now. Take one million dollars and put it into the hands of a single person. There's only so much he can do with that money in terms of juicing the economy. But take those same million dollars and put it into the hands of a thousand families. They will in turn buy goods and services with it which will nourish the economy (and other workers) at all levels, especially small businesses.
1 Kings 4:25: “So Judah and Israel lived in safety, everyone under their own vine and fig tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.”
To me that sounds like everyone was pleased. I guess to socialists it sounds like hell on earth.
"Income inequality" is a fact of human society. Some work is more valuable to society than other work and so should be compensated differently for a number of reasons.
Conservatives and right wingers (by no means the same thing) are well versed in how to pretzel twist and/or misinterpret Scripture to justify their support for a manifestly unjust system. Read Hosea, read Amos, read Micah... income inequality is an abomination to the LORD, and will bring disaster down upon the nation which enables it.
The talented are sought after and the untalented are not. So the talented end up with more opportunities and therefore more income/wealth. It's good for society that their talents are sought after and used. The untalented may resent that fact, but that is just the sin of envy.
The most talented don't have to worry about that sin. They have to worry about other sins including greed.
Conservatives and right wingers (by no means the same thing) are well versed in how to pretzel twist and/or misinterpret Scripture to justify their support for a manifestly unjust system.
Partisan attacks against kettles carry more weight when the attacker isn't a pot.
2 Chronicles 1:10+ Now grant me wisdom and knowledge, so that I may lead this people. For who is able to govern this great people of Yours?” 11God said to Solomon, “Since this was in your heart instead of requesting riches or wealth or glory for yourself or death for your enemies— and since you have not even requested long life but have asked for wisdom and knowledge to govern My people over whom I have made you king— 12therefore wisdom and knowledge have been granted to you. And I will also give you riches and wealth and honor unlike anything given to the kings before you or after you.”…
So if God's will is that everyone have the same amount of stuff, then why did he give Solomon more stuff than anyone ever? Or is God a "right-winger"?
The Lord God also desires an end to all wars, yet He allowed the genocide of the Canaanites.
Careful how you cherry pick the Scriptures, for they can turn on you without warning. The Catholic understanding of the Bible does not rely on "proof verses", but rather on the overall sense of Scripture. The prophets are unanimous in condemning "ill gotten gains" and uncompromising in their defense of the poor, the "stranger in your midst" the widow and the orphan, the homeless, the refugee, and the roadside beggar.
Now if you can, rather than citing some isolated and easily misinterpreted passage, demonstrate how the Law and the Prophets favor radical income inequality as the will of God, well then... but I don't have to worry about that hypothetical, because it can't be done.
When I see an opponent burning strawmen by the truckload I feel confident I've made my point.
But you really shouldn't declare that God and the Bible are on the side of socialists. That ideology has been the death of more people than any other in the history of the world.
"But you really shouldn't declare that God and the Bible are on the side of socialists"
God is most definitely NOT on the the side of any political party or system (to include socialism, but also to include capitalism). But He IS indisputably on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the the persecuted, the outcast, the "stranger in your midst", the slave, the widow and the orphan, and of anyone whom "the system" discards as worthless.
And I certainly don't regard helping the poor as a goal of socialism although that's their claim just like your "true socialism" and the other "true socialisms" that dupes and devils keep trying.
You need to debate the definition of socialism with socialists, of which I am not. I was totally serious some months back when I said that I was in favor of reviving the Holy Roman Empire. Those are my politics - not those of socialists or capitalists or any other economic system.
I don't care how much someone makes unless they are taking money through taxes. Other than my time in the military, all the money I have made was freely given for a job, service or product I provided. It was agreed on by both me and the one handing over the cash. I took no unwilling money I can think of. Perhaps this is a childish sense of pride.
Since there are the super rich, maybe I should have designed private jets to get my fair share.
You obviously hate the poor if you don't care that some people are richer than others and don't want to take it all away from them. In fact you should probably have your property taken away from you for not caring.
And who do you think you are making deals with people other than the government about how much money to exchange for your products and services. You know that only the government knows what is fair. The money you recieved was from Black Market profiteering. One more reason to take your property away. Maybe you should be shot too.
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. [...] But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger." (Luke 6:20-24)
[The LORD] looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, But behold, a cry! Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land. (Isaiah 5:7-8)
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you. (James 5:1-6)
"[The LORD] has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away." (Luke 1:51-53)
"You obviously hate the poor if you don't care that some people are richer than others and don't want to take it all away from them." (bmiller, November 02, 2021 7:18 AM)
The opposite of solidarity with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the"stranger in your midst" (a.k.a., the immigrant), the sub-living wage earner, the persecuted, the refugee, the ostracised and the dispossessed is not complacency... it is hostility toward them. There is no middle ground.
You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. It's either one or the other.
"The opposite of solidarity with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the"stranger in your midst" (a.k.a., the immigrant), the sub-living wage earner, the persecuted, the refugee, the ostracised and the dispossessed is not complacency... it is hostility toward them."
I don't like to call people names, but I find this line of reasoning idiotic. I will let God be my judge for what I have done for people in need. I will also let God be the judge for the one's I have tried to help.
I can take a thousand examples, but one came to mind at the moment (because I was following some curiosity of mine today):
"It wasn’t until 1775 that the first patent for a flush toilet was requested by Englishman Alexander Cumming. He was the one who came up with the S-shaped pipe beneath the toilet bowl that kept odors and gases from the sewers out. The pipe also kept water in, creating a neater bathroom experience. About a hundred years later, Thomas Crapper took that idea and made it into a line of flush toilets. Crapper is often cited as the inventor of the flush toilet (hence the slang term “crapper” for toilet), but he merely took an existing idea and ran with it. It turns out that the name “crapper” was coined by American soldiers in England who noticed Crapper’s prolific toilet business. They started using the term and brought it back to the States and the rest is history."
These two guys probably did more for the poor than all the political solidarity people put together. To have your human waste taken away rather than leaving it in your yard, your drinking water and your crops relieved more human misery than any concern about CEO wages. I don't know what their motivation was, but I hope they became billionaires and were able to keep their money.
"I hope they became billionaires and were able to keep their money."
It all depends on whether they paid a living wage to the workers who manufactured those toilets, and did not defraud anyone in the process. Then they can keep all the money they want. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich. What might be wrong is how you got there. Read the passage from James again (quoted above).
Yes Mr. Starhopper, I'm familiar with James. I consider it the Proverbs of the New Testament. I put much of it to memory in my first year after conversation to Christianity. As a young man, it gave me much wisdom in my choices in life that later saved me from much of the foolishness I was inclined toward.
A living wage is an interesting and subjective concept: Living in England in 1800, living in Somalia in 1990, living in Silicon Valley of California in 2021, living in a slum in Calcutta in 1960, living on a farm before the industrial revolution, can you please explain?
Easy to explain. The cost of living is higher in San Francisco than it is in Indianapolis. Therefore a living wage in SF is much higher than the same thing in Indianapolis. Goods and services today cost far more than they did prior to the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, a living wage today is much more today than back then. What's not to understand?
As to being rich not inherently wrong, perhaps I should elaborate. Being rich, although in and of itself, is not "wrong", it is nevertheless quite dangerous, and probably ought to be avoided if possible. Once a person has met his basic needs, everything beyond that can all too easily become a false idol. That is why Jesus advised the rich young man to give up his wealth. Not because there was anything intrinsically bad about his wealth, but it was evidently too important to him, and was holding him back from a true commitment to Christ. Divesting himself of his riches would have been a liberation from them - like giving up smoking or some other vice. On the other hand, there are many admirable persons in Scripture, to whom great wealth was not an occasion to sin - Abraham, Job, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, and Lydia of Thyatira.
And there are two types of poverty, which unfortunately go by the same name, although they are entirely different things. First, there is voluntary poverty, such as embraced by so many of the saints (such as St. Francis). This is good. But sadly there is also involuntary poverty, which is the result of systemic injustice, racism, inequality, and unearned privilege... systemic sin, actually. This is a grave evil.
As for myself, I prefer to own as little as possible. I have a roof over my head (which I do not own), my clothes, some furniture, my books, this laptop, and a few other odds and ends. I own no stocks, bonds, or any other investment. I do not have a television or a smartphone. I own no real estate or other property. I give away each month whatever income I have in excess of my basic needs. I once reported to the police that my home had been broken into, and when they asked me what was missing, I answered (truthfully) "nothing". After looking around, one of the policemen said, "Well, no wonder. There's nothing here worth stealing!" That's freedom!
I don't care about your personal life in a discussion about CEO pay and no one brought it up except you. So it's repulsive for you to tell everyone how saintly you think you are to begin with and now you compare yourself to St Paul. I'm gagging.
There is no "formula". A living wage is whatever enables a family to afford lodging, food, clothing, and whatever else is necessary for life in whatever time or place they find themselves in. It is one thing in New York City and another in rural Ohio. It is one thing in 2021, and another in 1913.
I had no idea that you were such a snowflake. I'll be more careful so as not to trigger you in the future. May I suggest you retreat to your safe space for a bit while you recover from my microaggression.
When fighting poverty, tax cuts for the rich and corporations do not help. Jobs are created by so called "job creators" to only a very limited extent. What actually creates jobs is putting money into the hands of families, who will in turn go out and juice the economy at a local level. Small businesses and neighborhoods will thrive. But massive income inequality actually hurts the economy. For evidence of that, look around the world at countries with no middle class. Their economies stink!
As an analogy, think about lifting a heavy load. You should always stoop down and lift from the bottom. If you just bend over and try to pull it up from above, you'll sprain your back. In like manner, "trickle down" (or as Archie Bunker called it, "tinkle down") does nothing for the poor, whilst lifting "from the bottom" (i.e., direct support to the poor) lifts everyone up.
We have a deal... as long as you agree to cease posting the insane right drivel that is your stock and trade. Otherwise, I will continue to either laugh at or be disgusted by your postings in the privacy of my home, and you can do the same for mine.
No deal. And as for comparing myself to St. Paul being a gagging offence, I should hope that I resemble him in some ways. I strive daily to imitate the saints in all that I do, and one would expect that at least some of their character would rub off on an imitator after a time. Perhaps you'd be less triggered if I restricted myself to comparisons with St. Prokop, an 11th Century Czech priest and recluse who lived in a cave overlooking the Sázava River. He became the first abbot of the Sázava Monastery in 1032, and was canonized in 1804.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Your faux "repulsion" is nothing more than a dodge, an attempt to change the subject because you've painted yourself into a corner in this discussion that you cannot neither defend nor get out of, other than by repudiating your (repulsive) knee jerk right wing views.
I only interact with you in the hope that you might someday "see the light" and repent in dust and ashes. I too was once a Conservative. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan! But in time I grew up, and the wisdom of age (slowly and painfully) revealed to me my former error. (I should write a book on the story of my personal enlightenment some day.) The poor and the disenfranchised deserve our active support (both individually and, more importantly, collectively), not our convenient dismissal of injustice as "just human nature".
"When fighting poverty, tax cuts for the rich and corporations do not help."
I asked for a formula for a "living wage." Sorry you had to just chant the current political line. The best way to fight poverty is to produce things like toilets to improve people's lives.
I challenge you to listen closely to political speeches (especially on the Democratic side) about tax incentives. Someone like President Obama will announce tax incentives to corporations that will do things like hire more minorities, hire more veterans, provide more medical benefits, upgrade their energy use to solar panels.
Everyone cheers. Go Go Go Obama!!! Then when the corporation follows the federal guidelines for tax incentives, these clowns turn around and attack them for not paying their fair share. Obama knows it's BS, the corporations know it's BS, I know it's BS, but as long as guys like Starhopper will repeat the same chant it works for their political power.
As an aside, I think Miller is much more insightful and reasonable than you.
Other than by registration, I am not a Democrat. I disagree with the party on some pretty fundamental issues. I am a registered Dem solely because I live in the blue, blue state of Maryland, and most races are decided in the primaries. Whoever wins the Dem primary is almost always the winner in the general. I'd like to have my small voice count in who gets elected. If I lived in some ruby red state, I would switch to the Repubs in a heartbeat, and for the same reason.
As for insight, take a look at my own blog. I save my best stuff for there.
Income inequality is a concern of mine. One of the great things about living in the United States is each state can carry out their political ideas with some independence. I live in probably the most left-wing state in the Union. We are filled with demagogues about income inequality. We also happen to have one of the greatest income inequalities in the Union. I would be glad to discuss that topic with you sometime.
Ahh, so you're a New Englander. (That is, unless you live in Hawaii.) Either way, I envy you! I've never been to Hawaii, but prior to COVID, I would spend a week in Vermont every summer and one in Massachusetts in the fall. (I have relatives in both states.) I sadly haven't left the Baltimore metro area for well over a year now, except once to Salisbury on Maryland's Eastern Shore, for a Veterans For Peace affair.
But if you have "one of the greatest income inequalities in the Union", well, that's probably why you're hearing so much about it.
Full disclosure: Income inequality is not my Number One issue. That would be either preventing climate catastrophe or nuclear disarmament (both positions championed by Pope Francis). The bulk of my activism is in those two areas. After 4 years in the Army and 34 years with the "Defense" Department, I have since embraced something close to pacifism, which might explain my priorities. I need to atone for my past sins.
Similar to you, I'm involved in The Veterans For More Warfare movement. Since I have a place in Canada after the planet fries, I'm also in favor of things warming up.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Your faux "repulsion" is nothing more than a dodge, an attempt to change the subject because you've painted yourself into a corner in this discussion that you cannot neither defend nor get out of, other than by repudiating your (repulsive) knee jerk right wing views.
No. Seriously. I think sanctimonious hypocrisy is repulsive and I thought everyone else did too aside from sanctimonious hypocrites. I guess I have only one thing to conclude then.
As far as the rest of your rant about "painting myself into a corner", I've got no idea what you're talking about. I started off by saying there was nothing wrong, in itself, of being rich and you attacked me. Later you agreed with me. Was that view "right wing" when you disagreed with me to begin with or "right wing" later when you agreed with me?
I'm often torn between the philosophical question of whether it is better to nuke the planet before frying it to a crisp or fry it to a crisp and then nuke it. How does your local chapter of "The Veterans For More Warfare " view it?
Forgive me for my selfish limited perspective. My Mom was Canadian. I've been eyeing the tundra of northern Canada thinking this will be prime farmland after the planet heats up. Perhaps I could sell my California house while the crazies are taking over and grow grapes in Canada after things warm a bit.
California? That's not the most left wing (whatever that means) state in the union. They're all up in New England (other than New Hampshire)! Next comes Hawaii, then Maryland, and only then California.
63 comments:
Socialism is a buzzword that I avoid, but I'm skeptical of the government having a vested interest in controlling executive pay beyond a red meat policy to stir up some good old class resentment.
That said, taxing the rich more and closing all the obscene loopholes in the tax code, I have no problem with. Nor would I object to requiring pay cuts at salaries above a certain level before laying off workers for financial reasons or being offered financial assistance.
The current income gap between executives and workers is obscene, immoral, harmful to society, and contrary to every word ever spoken by the prophets... but, I can't think of an effective or a legal way to correct it, short of true socialism (and not the imaginary "socialism" bandied about by politicians who have no idea what the word actually means).
It would be the fascism form of socialism if the company was supposedly privately owned. It would be the communist form of socialism if the company was supposedly owned by the state. In both cases "the state" determines who gets what and in both cases and "the state" is just a bunch of elite sinners that wield ultimate power and rewards their friends and punishes their enemies.
I wouldn't mind Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg being rich if they were just rich instead of rich and evil.
The "income gap" itself is not evil, it's how the people with wealth use their wealth that can be good or evil.
For example:
1 Kings 10:23
King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.
Solomon was not resented by his people because he used his great wealth to bolster his people.
"Solomon was not resented by his people."
He wasn't resented by his people? Read your Bible. As soon as Solomon was dead, the people couldn't wait to tear the kingdom away from his heir, and thus the lasting split between Judah and Israel.
And income inequality does do enormous harm to the economy and society. Economists have been pointing this out for decades now. Take one million dollars and put it into the hands of a single person. There's only so much he can do with that money in terms of juicing the economy. But take those same million dollars and put it into the hands of a thousand families. They will in turn buy goods and services with it which will nourish the economy (and other workers) at all levels, especially small businesses.
Read your Bible.
1 Kings 4:25:
“So Judah and Israel lived in safety, everyone under their own vine and fig tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.”
To me that sounds like everyone was pleased. I guess to socialists it sounds like hell on earth.
"Income inequality" is a fact of human society. Some work is more valuable to society than other work and so should be compensated differently for a number of reasons.
Conservatives and right wingers (by no means the same thing) are well versed in how to pretzel twist and/or misinterpret Scripture to justify their support for a manifestly unjust system. Read Hosea, read Amos, read Micah... income inequality is an abomination to the LORD, and will bring disaster down upon the nation which enables it.
The rich exploiting the poor is bad. The rich helping the poor is good.
You are not an Old Testament prophet even if you look that old and think you understand them.
The talented are sought after and the untalented are not. So the talented end up with more opportunities and therefore more income/wealth. It's good for society that their talents are sought after and used. The untalented may resent that fact, but that is just the sin of envy.
The most talented don't have to worry about that sin. They have to worry about other sins including greed.
Now that I think about it isn't envy itself is a form of greed? Both are a form of coveting what one does not have.
Conservatives and right wingers (by no means the same thing) are well versed in how to pretzel twist and/or misinterpret Scripture to justify their support for a manifestly unjust system.
Partisan attacks against kettles carry more weight when the attacker isn't a pot.
I don't remember reading that Solomon or his safe and happy subjects were right wingers.
Learn something new every day.
2 Chronicles 1:10+
Now grant me wisdom and knowledge, so that I may lead this people. For who is able to govern this great people of Yours?” 11God said to Solomon, “Since this was in your heart instead of requesting riches or wealth or glory for yourself or death for your enemies— and since you have not even requested long life but have asked for wisdom and knowledge to govern My people over whom I have made you king— 12therefore wisdom and knowledge have been granted to you. And I will also give you riches and wealth and honor unlike anything given to the kings before you or after you.”…
So if God's will is that everyone have the same amount of stuff, then why did he give Solomon more stuff than anyone ever? Or is God a "right-winger"?
The Lord God also desires an end to all wars, yet He allowed the genocide of the Canaanites.
Careful how you cherry pick the Scriptures, for they can turn on you without warning. The Catholic understanding of the Bible does not rely on "proof verses", but rather on the overall sense of Scripture. The prophets are unanimous in condemning "ill gotten gains" and uncompromising in their defense of the poor, the "stranger in your midst" the widow and the orphan, the homeless, the refugee, and the roadside beggar.
Now if you can, rather than citing some isolated and easily misinterpreted passage, demonstrate how the Law and the Prophets favor radical income inequality as the will of God, well then... but I don't have to worry about that hypothetical, because it can't be done.
When I see an opponent burning strawmen by the truckload I feel confident I've made my point.
But you really shouldn't declare that God and the Bible are on the side of socialists. That ideology has been the death of more people than any other in the history of the world.
"But you really shouldn't declare that God and the Bible are on the side of socialists"
God is most definitely NOT on the the side of any political party or system (to include socialism, but also to include capitalism). But He IS indisputably on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the the persecuted, the outcast, the "stranger in your midst", the slave, the widow and the orphan, and of anyone whom "the system" discards as worthless.
If you regard being on the side of the poor and the oppressed as "socialism", then you've got a problem.
I think hearing the truth actually causes you pain. If it didn't you would respond to what I said about the rich and poor rather than making stuff up.
And I certainly don't regard helping the poor as a goal of socialism although that's their claim just like your "true socialism" and the other "true socialisms" that dupes and devils keep trying.
You need to debate the definition of socialism with socialists, of which I am not. I was totally serious some months back when I said that I was in favor of reviving the Holy Roman Empire. Those are my politics - not those of socialists or capitalists or any other economic system.
I wasn't debating I was quoting.
Now you'll tell me I hate the poor because I caught you out. yada yada yada.
Pretty boring hearing angry old man yelling at people on their lawn.
I don't have a lawn.
Yeah. All the more demented.
I don't care how much someone makes unless they are taking money through taxes. Other than my time in the military, all the money I have made was freely given for a job, service or product I provided. It was agreed on by both me and the one handing over the cash. I took no unwilling money I can think of. Perhaps this is a childish sense of pride.
Since there are the super rich, maybe I should have designed private jets to get my fair share.
Limited,
You obviously hate the poor if you don't care that some people are richer than others and don't want to take it all away from them. In fact you should probably have your property taken away from you for not caring.
And who do you think you are making deals with people other than the government about how much money to exchange for your products and services. You know that only the government knows what is fair. The money you recieved was from Black Market profiteering. One more reason to take your property away. Maybe you should be shot too.
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. [...]
But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger."
(Luke 6:20-24)
[The LORD] looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, But behold, a cry! Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land.
(Isaiah 5:7-8)
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you.
(James 5:1-6)
"[The LORD] has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away."
(Luke 1:51-53)
"You obviously hate the poor if you don't care that some people are richer than others and don't want to take it all away from them."
(bmiller, November 02, 2021 7:18 AM)
The opposite of solidarity with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the"stranger in your midst" (a.k.a., the immigrant), the sub-living wage earner, the persecuted, the refugee, the ostracised and the dispossessed is not complacency... it is hostility toward them. There is no middle ground.
You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. It's either one or the other.
Then you must be hostile to the poor since you want to keep them perpetually in poverty. That's demonic.
"The opposite of solidarity with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the"stranger in your midst" (a.k.a., the immigrant), the sub-living wage earner, the persecuted, the refugee, the ostracised and the dispossessed is not complacency... it is hostility toward them."
I don't like to call people names, but I find this line of reasoning idiotic. I will let God be my judge for what I have done for people in need. I will also let God be the judge for the one's I have tried to help.
I can take a thousand examples, but one came to mind at the moment (because I was following some curiosity of mine today):
"It wasn’t until 1775 that the first patent for a flush toilet was requested by Englishman Alexander Cumming. He was the one who came up with the S-shaped pipe beneath the toilet bowl that kept odors and gases from the sewers out. The pipe also kept water in, creating a neater bathroom experience.
About a hundred years later, Thomas Crapper took that idea and made it into a line of flush toilets. Crapper is often cited as the inventor of the flush toilet (hence the slang term “crapper” for toilet), but he merely took an existing idea and ran with it. It turns out that the name “crapper” was coined by American soldiers in England who noticed Crapper’s prolific toilet business. They started using the term and brought it back to the States and the rest is history."
These two guys probably did more for the poor than all the political solidarity people put together. To have your human waste taken away rather than leaving it in your yard, your drinking water and your crops relieved more human misery than any concern about CEO wages. I don't know what their motivation was, but I hope they became billionaires and were able to keep their money.
"I hope they became billionaires and were able to keep their money."
It all depends on whether they paid a living wage to the workers who manufactured those toilets, and did not defraud anyone in the process. Then they can keep all the money they want. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich. What might be wrong is how you got there. Read the passage from James again (quoted above).
There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich.
Unless bmiller says the same thing. Then it's not only get off my lawn! It's get off your own lawn!
Yes Mr. Starhopper, I'm familiar with James. I consider it the Proverbs of the New Testament. I put much of it to memory in my first year after conversation to Christianity. As a young man, it gave me much wisdom in my choices in life that later saved me from much of the foolishness I was inclined toward.
A living wage is an interesting and subjective concept: Living in England in 1800, living in Somalia in 1990, living in Silicon Valley of California in 2021, living in a slum in Calcutta in 1960, living on a farm before the industrial revolution, can you please explain?
Easy to explain. The cost of living is higher in San Francisco than it is in Indianapolis. Therefore a living wage in SF is much higher than the same thing in Indianapolis. Goods and services today cost far more than they did prior to the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, a living wage today is much more today than back then. What's not to understand?
As to being rich not inherently wrong, perhaps I should elaborate. Being rich, although in and of itself, is not "wrong", it is nevertheless quite dangerous, and probably ought to be avoided if possible. Once a person has met his basic needs, everything beyond that can all too easily become a false idol. That is why Jesus advised the rich young man to give up his wealth. Not because there was anything intrinsically bad about his wealth, but it was evidently too important to him, and was holding him back from a true commitment to Christ. Divesting himself of his riches would have been a liberation from them - like giving up smoking or some other vice. On the other hand, there are many admirable persons in Scripture, to whom great wealth was not an occasion to sin - Abraham, Job, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, and Lydia of Thyatira.
And there are two types of poverty, which unfortunately go by the same name, although they are entirely different things. First, there is voluntary poverty, such as embraced by so many of the saints (such as St. Francis). This is good. But sadly there is also involuntary poverty, which is the result of systemic injustice, racism, inequality, and unearned privilege... systemic sin, actually. This is a grave evil.
As for myself, I prefer to own as little as possible. I have a roof over my head (which I do not own), my clothes, some furniture, my books, this laptop, and a few other odds and ends. I own no stocks, bonds, or any other investment. I do not have a television or a smartphone. I own no real estate or other property. I give away each month whatever income I have in excess of my basic needs. I once reported to the police that my home had been broken into, and when they asked me what was missing, I answered (truthfully) "nothing". After looking around, one of the policemen said, "Well, no wonder. There's nothing here worth stealing!" That's freedom!
The humblebrag is repulsive.
Read St. Paul. He was forced to do the same thing by unscrupulous detractors.
Doubling down on humblebrag is even more repulsive.
Whatever.
I don't care about your personal life in a discussion about CEO pay and no one brought it up except you. So it's repulsive for you to tell everyone how saintly you think you are to begin with and now you compare yourself to St Paul. I'm gagging.
Sorry Starhopper, you didn't explain the formula for a living wage.
There is no "formula". A living wage is whatever enables a family to afford lodging, food, clothing, and whatever else is necessary for life in whatever time or place they find themselves in. It is one thing in New York City and another in rural Ohio. It is one thing in 2021, and another in 1913.
bmiller,
I had no idea that you were such a snowflake. I'll be more careful so as not to trigger you in the future. May I suggest you retreat to your safe space for a bit while you recover from my microaggression.
Limited Perspective,
When fighting poverty, tax cuts for the rich and corporations do not help. Jobs are created by so called "job creators" to only a very limited extent. What actually creates jobs is putting money into the hands of families, who will in turn go out and juice the economy at a local level. Small businesses and neighborhoods will thrive. But massive income inequality actually hurts the economy. For evidence of that, look around the world at countries with no middle class. Their economies stink!
As an analogy, think about lifting a heavy load. You should always stoop down and lift from the bottom. If you just bend over and try to pull it up from above, you'll sprain your back. In like manner, "trickle down" (or as Archie Bunker called it, "tinkle down") does nothing for the poor, whilst lifting "from the bottom" (i.e., direct support to the poor) lifts everyone up.
Thanks for agreeing to refrain from making any more pompous, obnoxious, narcissistic posts. Much appreciated.
I guess some people never learned that it is impolite to pass gas in public.
We have a deal... as long as you agree to cease posting the insane right drivel that is your stock and trade. Otherwise, I will continue to either laugh at or be disgusted by your postings in the privacy of my home, and you can do the same for mine.
Back to the topic of income inequality, I posted a rather lengthy piece on the subject sometime ago over on my own blog, HERE.
How about I just agree not to tell you how much holier and better I am compared to you (and anyone else who disagrees with me) and you do the same?
No deal. And as for comparing myself to St. Paul being a gagging offence, I should hope that I resemble him in some ways. I strive daily to imitate the saints in all that I do, and one would expect that at least some of their character would rub off on an imitator after a time. Perhaps you'd be less triggered if I restricted myself to comparisons with St. Prokop, an 11th Century Czech priest and recluse who lived in a cave overlooking the Sázava River. He became the first abbot of the Sázava Monastery in 1032, and was canonized in 1804.
Correction: Canonized in 1204.
I'm not triggered, I'm just repulsed by sanctimonious hypocrisy. I think that's a pretty universal reaction.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Your faux "repulsion" is nothing more than a dodge, an attempt to change the subject because you've painted yourself into a corner in this discussion that you cannot neither defend nor get out of, other than by repudiating your (repulsive) knee jerk right wing views.
I only interact with you in the hope that you might someday "see the light" and repent in dust and ashes. I too was once a Conservative. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan! But in time I grew up, and the wisdom of age (slowly and painfully) revealed to me my former error. (I should write a book on the story of my personal enlightenment some day.) The poor and the disenfranchised deserve our active support (both individually and, more importantly, collectively), not our convenient dismissal of injustice as "just human nature".
"When fighting poverty, tax cuts for the rich and corporations do not help."
I asked for a formula for a "living wage." Sorry you had to just chant the current political line. The best way to fight poverty is to produce things like toilets to improve people's lives.
I challenge you to listen closely to political speeches (especially on the Democratic side) about tax incentives. Someone like President Obama will announce tax incentives to corporations that will do things like hire more minorities, hire more veterans, provide more medical benefits, upgrade their energy use to solar panels.
Everyone cheers. Go Go Go Obama!!! Then when the corporation follows the federal guidelines for tax incentives, these clowns turn around and attack them for not paying their fair share. Obama knows it's BS, the corporations know it's BS, I know it's BS, but as long as guys like Starhopper will repeat the same chant it works for their political power.
As an aside, I think Miller is much more insightful and reasonable than you.
LP,
Other than by registration, I am not a Democrat. I disagree with the party on some pretty fundamental issues. I am a registered Dem solely because I live in the blue, blue state of Maryland, and most races are decided in the primaries. Whoever wins the Dem primary is almost always the winner in the general. I'd like to have my small voice count in who gets elected. If I lived in some ruby red state, I would switch to the Repubs in a heartbeat, and for the same reason.
As for insight, take a look at my own blog. I save my best stuff for there.
Income inequality is a concern of mine. One of the great things about living in the United States is each state can carry out their political ideas with some independence. I live in probably the most left-wing state in the Union. We are filled with demagogues about income inequality. We also happen to have one of the greatest income inequalities in the Union. I would be glad to discuss that topic with you sometime.
As a note I am self-employed.
Ahh, so you're a New Englander. (That is, unless you live in Hawaii.) Either way, I envy you! I've never been to Hawaii, but prior to COVID, I would spend a week in Vermont every summer and one in Massachusetts in the fall. (I have relatives in both states.) I sadly haven't left the Baltimore metro area for well over a year now, except once to Salisbury on Maryland's Eastern Shore, for a Veterans For Peace affair.
But if you have "one of the greatest income inequalities in the Union", well, that's probably why you're hearing so much about it.
Full disclosure: Income inequality is not my Number One issue. That would be either preventing climate catastrophe or nuclear disarmament (both positions championed by Pope Francis). The bulk of my activism is in those two areas. After 4 years in the Army and 34 years with the "Defense" Department, I have since embraced something close to pacifism, which might explain my priorities. I need to atone for my past sins.
I'll admit, that is a pretty good reply.
Similar to you, I'm involved in The Veterans For More Warfare movement. Since I have a place in Canada after the planet fries, I'm also in favor of things warming up.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Your faux "repulsion" is nothing more than a dodge, an attempt to change the subject because you've painted yourself into a corner in this discussion that you cannot neither defend nor get out of, other than by repudiating your (repulsive) knee jerk right wing views.
No. Seriously. I think sanctimonious hypocrisy is repulsive and I thought everyone else did too aside from sanctimonious hypocrites. I guess I have only one thing to conclude then.
As far as the rest of your rant about "painting myself into a corner", I've got no idea what you're talking about. I started off by saying there was nothing wrong, in itself, of being rich and you attacked me. Later you agreed with me. Was that view "right wing" when you disagreed with me to begin with or "right wing" later when you agreed with me?
Limited,
I'm often torn between the philosophical question of whether it is better to nuke the planet before frying it to a crisp or fry it to a crisp and then nuke it. How does your local chapter of "The Veterans For More Warfare " view it?
Forgive me for my selfish limited perspective. My Mom was Canadian. I've been eyeing the tundra of northern Canada thinking this will be prime farmland after the planet heats up. Perhaps I could sell my California house while the crazies are taking over and grow grapes in Canada after things warm a bit.
California? That's not the most left wing (whatever that means) state in the union. They're all up in New England (other than New Hampshire)! Next comes Hawaii, then Maryland, and only then California.
Fair enough Starhopper
Post a Comment