I understand your position, but the problem is that private citizens DON'T work together to meet the needs of the poor.  The attitude of the "government should do nothing" people seems like that the poor should either be taken care of by philanthropic groups or should die of starvation, but under NO circumstances should the receive help from their leaders.  That sounds more childish to me...

I didn't accuse you of this!  I said that's the way the attitude (or position) seems sometimes.

My question is what if Peter doesn't help Paul.  Does Paul get to die so Peter can be more well off?

As for communism as a government, it's not necessarily that way.  Communism isn't even a governing system; it's an economic system.  We have communism vs capitalism.  In the past, communist societies have been ruled by autocrats, but that's not necessary, is it?  Why not have a democracy for a government and a communism for an economic system?  I'm not saying that's the best idea in the world, but the word "communism" doesn't need to carry the weight people have tried to allow it to carry.

Communism has nothing to do with personal freedoms.  People who have applied communisms to their societies have taken personal freedoms too, but they are from the same cause, not cause and effect.  Here's an analogy.  Each year, whenever the sale of ice cream goes up, the number of drownings also go up.  Does that mean ice cream causes people to drown?  Of course not.  It means it's summertime and more people go swimming and more people buy ice cream.

I do not wish to pick on the U.S. My own country is much the same. We have more parties in our parliamentary system, but the two mainline parties which have formed the government since it became an independent country are much the same. Both jockey to occupy the center of the political spectrum. The other parties are special interest parties, separatist, socialist and green. At best they can hope to make up the opposition.

U.S. politics is fascinating for many reasons. The main one being its scale: the length of the campaigns, the cost and the obsession of the media.

The litmus test for political parties is the mark that they leave after being in power. Unfortunately, parties that promise change rarely deliver. Once in Ontario the NDP (our "social democratic" party) took power. They promised to make change, but found that once in power the could not deliver. Why? Because economic chaos would have developed as industry threatened to flee should they implement their program. So even when business fails to elect a government favorable to them they still have the economy to use as a hammer.

Companies do not get a vote, but they have far more power than the electorate.

Mussolini once said that corporatism and fascism were the same thing. Decision making is made behind closed doors and what we see is all theater, to give us the illusion that those in power want us to have.

Canadians do not have the weight of the flag that any Americans have. We do not think that it is unpatriotic to condemn our leaders when they deserve it. In fact, it is a national sport to for the media. In contrast, the media in the U.S. is compliant and generally rolls over and apes whatever the White House tells it to say. Israel has boasted that it can kill any story it wants on CNN. Fox tells its correspondents what stories to cover and how to slant the stories to favor the administration. Failing that politicians use the flag to deflect criticism by suggesting that it is unpatriotic to question their policies. Most Americans are easily swayed by this. Canadian media would have a field day with this kind of behavior. Political humor is big here.

Part of the difference in the media is ownership and control over editorial content. In the U.S. it is private, but here we have the CBC which is publicly funded, but insulated from government control. I remember during the last presidential campaign with the Swift Boat incident where various media outlets came up with all kinds of anti-Kerry "information". Canadian media would never be allowed this kind of latitude. Canadians would have insisted on equal time. In fact it is the law. In the U.S. private ownership of the media gives power to media moguls to influence the political process. Again, they get no vote, but they have undue influence over the outcome.

One of the things that we are trying to do here is to control private interest groups from running ads which influence public opinion during elections. They have to walk a fine line. If they endorse anyone then they are considered part of the election campaign finances of the parties and must be reported. We have a long way to go, but we are making progress. The second thing that has happened is a cap on donations. Donations cannot exceed $5000 and financial support must be disclosed. Once it is a matter of public record then it easy to verify if a backer has received favorable treatment.

Finally, lobbying is strictly controlled here. Lobbyists are not given access to the Prime Minister or his Cabinet. Under conflict of interest laws they must report any contact and payments are not allowed. This is not to say it doesn't happen, but the media loves to access things under the freedom of information act and cause a scandal.

Right now there is a public inquiry into the behavior of a former prime minister for money he received after leaving office for contracts rewarded during his tenure. Contrast this with Dick Cheney who still receives salary while in office from Halliburton and the fact that Halliburton has received untendered contracts worth billions and that Cheney undoubtedly influenced the process. Hardly a whimper was heard from the U.S. press. Canadian media would not roll over and play dead in this way.

Canadian politicians must put all investments into a blind trust and must step down from all boards and companies that they own. Paul Martin, a former PM, had to turn his company over to his son while he was in office and he was prohibited from even giving advice to him.

It is not surprising that Canadians view American politics as a bit of a circus. It is like a reality show with lots of mud slinging and drama. Unfortunately it is all too real and the world bears the scars of the policies of whoever gets elected. Not just Americans suffer if Americans choose poorly.

Blessings,
Dunamite

To me it's not about control, but about making sure people are helped who need it.  I'm willing to give up some of my money to make sure others are taken care of.  The vast majority are too greedy to make that sacrifice, so we must help them make it.  Some people think they're "entitled" to it because they've schemed their way into the money.  I think that all money is God's and that the poor should be given some of the money, regardless of who lied cheated and stole their way into it.  I have zero sympathy for the money of the greedy rich.

So because of that we should not hold ourselves accountable to help the poor?  I'd rather force people to help than to let the poor suffer.

I apologize for the silly assertion I made here about the middle class carrying the tax load. I guess emotionally I was hoping it were true. Intellectually, though I know it not to be true per another thread started by Admin:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=19879.0

Does nobody remember that there was once no welfare system in the US?  That individual people donated much more to the needy than goes to the needy through force of taxation?

Churches were the receivers of donations and and distributors of relief.  It was a wonderful system.  Nobody starved, no families were multi-generations welfare bums.

The problem with that system is that there was no way to wield power from it.  A socialist/communist system needed to be implemented so power and wealth could be drawn from a welfare system.  Keeping people down, keeping workers down to pay extravagant taxes, holding votes hostage.  My, my.  All of a sudden everything a totalitarian government cold want!  Money!  Power!  Hostage Votes!

What the young man asks for, he nearly has.  A decrepit system.

You ask for communism?  That shows the level of your naivety.  The very design of theoretical communism was a farce.  Nobody ever considered there was such a system that would work.  It was always purely a fairytale to get uneducated people to believe in long enough to get total power over them before they realized they'd been sold a bill of goods.  If you believe communism is even a possibility, you are of the uneducated.  Get some education, understand how power and control is grasped by the political elite of the world.  Communism is a strategy, not a form of government.  Until you understand that, you understand nothing.

If you are a Christian and have read Judges and Kings, you understand it was not God's intent that man have any government.

If you are an avid student of government, you will understand that the US is NOT a democracy.  If you don't understand why the US was never formed to be a democracy, then before running long conversations on a forum, you need to get yourself educated.  In a democracy, people have NO rights.  That is why our government wants democracies around the world and not republics.  Those democratic countries will never achieve any power.  Only in a republic is there a possibility of rights.

You want a form of totalitarianism that "forces" people.  Only two kinds of people want a communistic state.  The power hungry and greed crazed politicians who drool of the possibilities when a people are so stupid as to accept communism, and the lazy and morally corrupt who think they won't have to work, someone else will pay their way.  Be it the rich greedy, or the poor greedy, only the greedy and morally corrupt desire communism.

It is an abomination to rob from Peter to pay Paul.  Paul needs to work for what he needs, or go the the Church Peter willingly donates to for temporary assistance.

That is how this country ran for many decades, over a century.  A time when this country was building and growing and had moral fiber.  Now the condition of the nation's moral fiber (and education) is evident when a young, uneducated, person suggests that freedom be thrown to the pigs, greed replace patriotism, the willing horses be whipped, the lazy profit, the politicians become astronomically rich.  You don't even know you're morally corrupt.  Or maybe you do?

OK, since this is a Christian forum, perhaps you can show us Biblically how God's people are to handle the situation of the poor.