Budget

[Lord Duckhunter]

Since they did put in countless official objections to it's very creation it's not a myth.

 

 

As did doctors, until Bevan " stuffed their mouths with gold"

[CB Fry]

As did doctors, until Bevan " stuffed their mouths with gold"

....powered by a mandate as the party with the most seats in 1945, so shouldn't you "shut the fu ck up" about it and accept the result?

Edited 10 July, 2015 by CB Fry

[Sour Mash]

Since they did put in countless official objections to it's very creation it's not a myth.

 

But I think you'll find it comes back to popularism. Creaping privatisation of services is happening all the time; they wouldn't dare just flat out kill it as that would be incredibly unpopular indeed (it's been their view to go with the populace but slowly, bring in their "market forces idea") and if you think they love the NHS and want to keep it, you are very deluded.

 

Just don't ever think that a party who object to spending their tax-payers money on thing like the sick, the poor and the needy are in any way champions or founders of such a system as you would be wrong.

How much of this is true or not? http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

[Lord Duckhunter]

....powered by a mandate as the party with the most seats in 1945, so shouldn't you "shut the fu ck up" about it and accept the result?

 

Hockey seemed to be making the point that Tory opposition to setting up NHS equates to wanting to destroy it. I was merely pointing out that doctors , before being bribed , also opposed it. So you can oppose its setting up without wanting to destroy 70 years later .

 

I fail to see what that's got to do with acceptance of any election result , from the Docs maybe, but not me.

[CB Saint]

There is potentially some bias, but a YouGov poll shows a similar level of distortion between perception and reality on tax distribution as well:

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/09/public-attitudes-tax-distribution/

 

This made me laugh. Potentially??? Its the TUC, of course there is bias.

[ecuk268]

I don't think there's anyone against a " safety net" but if you think someone on 39k with one kid needs the safety net of family allowance or Paul McCartney needs winter fuel allowance you're deluded. Too many people, far too many people receive state handouts and as a result they're spread way too thinly and the genuine needy struggle as a result

 

You're right but they won't do anything about it.

 

I'm over 60 but still working and getting a pretty good salary. I don't need the Winter Fuel Allowance and I could afford to do without my bus pass (which I use a lot in Southampton and London). But my age group are the ones most likely to vote and so the parties are reluctant to do anything that might upset us.

 

Hence the people who've done well (or least badly) in the budget are pensioners who's incomes will be protected and, ironically,

where the largest portion of the benefits bill is spent.

[JackFrost]

And? Something offend your right wing sensibilities there or do you dislike reality?

 

Your 'reality' illustrates to a tee why Labour bombed in the last election, and why large parts of traditional Labour territory voted Conservative.

[st alex]

You're right but they won't do anything about it.

 

I'm over 60 but still working and getting a pretty good salary. I don't need the Winter Fuel Allowance and I could afford to do without my bus pass (which I use a lot in Southampton and London). But my age group are the ones most likely to vote and so the parties are reluctant to do anything that might upset us.

 

Hence the people who've done well (or least badly) in the budget are pensioners who's incomes will be protected and, ironically,

where the largest portion of the benefits bill is spent.

 

That are also plenty of people who don't claim benefits they're entitled to, I don't know the updated figures, but if it's anything like in 2012 then there's several billion pounds of benefits that go unclaimed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17139088

[Hockey_saint]

Hockey seemed to be making the point that Tory opposition to setting up NHS equates to wanting to destroy it. I was merely pointing out that doctors , before being bribed , also opposed it. So you can oppose its setting up without wanting to destroy 70 years later .

 

I fail to see what that's got to do with acceptance of any election result , from the Docs maybe, but not me.

 

I would suggest that I am speculating that it's something that is diametrically opposed to their very idea of a low tax, low government intervention state. So I would suggest they are uneasy with it and the only reason they keep it alive is because the public would go mad if they did what UKIP suggested and create an insurance-based system.

 

Also, Jack Frost, the reason large numbers of labour supporters abstained (because I do not believe the figures support such a wholesale move to a party diametrically opposed to what most believe in) is because currently labour are a sham as the right-wing media have turned being left into something intrinsically evil (which it isn't) so they are scrambling to the middle ground and have essentially become a tory-light party.

[Jonnyboy]

Jesus Christ

 

... was a socialist.

[Sour Mash]

I would suggest that I am speculating that it's something that is diametrically opposed to their very idea of a low tax, low government intervention state. So I would suggest they are uneasy with it and the only reason they keep it alive is because the public would go mad if they did what UKIP suggested and create an insurance-based system.

 

Also, Jack Frost, the reason large numbers of labour supporters abstained (because I do not believe the figures support such a wholesale move to a party diametrically opposed to what most believe in) is because currently labour are a sham as the right-wing media have turned being left into something intrinsically evil (which it isn't) so they are scrambling to the middle ground and have essentially become a tory-light party.

 

So you now agree that the Tories don't want to destroy the NHS?

 

And you think millions would be rushing to vote in a left wing govt if it wasn't for the nasty tabloids?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

currently labour are a sham as the right-wing media have turned being left into something intrinsically evil (which it isn't) so they are scrambling to the middle ground and have essentially become a tory-light party.

 

Please .... "The right media wot won it " . Jesus Christ .

 

When was the last time lefties won an election , 1974? Labour became new labour and moved towards a Tory lite , not because of any media conspiracy but because socialism is as outdated as The Shadows or Pat Boone

[Hockey_saint]

So you now agree that the Tories don't want to destroy the NHS?

 

And you think millions would be rushing to vote in a left wing govt if it wasn't for the nasty tabloids?

 

Did I say they didn't want to destroy it? If they could, they probably would.

 

How can caring for your fellow man be outdated Lord Duckhunter? Because that's what socialism is and if what you are saying is true, that we've all turned into a bunch of "me first sod the other guy" capitalists then sod it, why bother existing at all? Why don't we all just give our freedom back to the rich landowners and have a feudal society again?

 

And I mean, as JohnBoy says up there, we all know that essentially Jesus Christ was a socialist, but please stop invoking him.

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[Sour Mash]

Did I say they didn't want to destroy it? If they could, they probably would.

 

How can caring for your fellow man be outdated Lord Duckhunter? Because that's what socialism is and if what you are saying is true, that we've all turned into a bunch of "me first sod the other guy" capitalists then sod it, why bother existing at all? Why don't we all just give our freedom back to the rich landowners and have a feudal society again?

 

And I mean, as JohnBoy says up there, we all know that essentially Jesus Christ was a socialist, but please stop invoking him.

 

Ok, lets put it another way. You agree that the Tories aren't going to be destroying the NHS, regardless of their reasons for doing so?

[Hockey_saint]

Ok, lets put it another way. You agree that the Tories aren't going to be destroying the NHS, regardless of their reasons for doing so?

 

If the right-wing press can do as good a job at suggesting to the British public that the NHS is unsustainable and that we should, step-by-step sleepwalk into a privatised health care system as they have making everyone think that people on benefites are scroungers then hell yes, they'd jump at the chance.

 

Fist bumping when celebrating removing people's working tax credits is an excellent example of the lovely people we have in government today.

[Colinjb]

Fist bumping when celebrating removing people's working tax credits is an excellent example of the lovely people we have in government today.

 

So we should encourage dependence on the state for those that do not need it?

 

A welfare state is noble, a population dependent on it's own state is self destroying. Thank f**k the madness is coming to an end. Do you oppose a society where those that can work do work?

 

Or, do you propose that we stick to a system that sees a population needing it's state rather then a state needing it's people?

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[Jonnyboy]

Work for works sake. Why cant the human race chill out ffs.

[Colinjb]

Work for works sake. Why cant the human race chill out ffs.

 

Work and effort always has value. It's never for it's own sake.

 

It's one of those areas where socialism and capitalism share an odd cross over.

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[Hockey_saint]

So we should encourage dependence on the state for those that do not need it?

 

A welfare state is noble, a population dependent on it's own state is self destroying. Thank f**k the madness is coming to an end. Do you oppose a society where those that can work do work?

 

Or, do you propose that we stick to a system that sees a population needing it's state rather then a state needing it's people?

 

Arbeit macht frei eh?

 

No, not at all. It's how you judge these things I suppose. You should understand that taking an all-encompassing view that everyone should not be dependent on the state is also a noble one but unfortunately it is not realistic. You have to understand that there are people in this society that will need help for the rest of their lives and just throw them essentially out on the street and say "hey, we're all in this together" is pretty bad.

 

The problem with such cuts is the use of a sledgehammer to crush a peanut. You can say "ooooh but the actual sick will be ok" but they wont and they haven't been so please, I just think a more tactful approach is needed other than hiring some French IT contractor to shave a certain figure off the benefit bill is wrong whilst you allow your media friends to publish how they're all pulling a sicky.

[Sour Mash]

If the right-wing press can do as good a job at suggesting to the British public that the NHS is unsustainable and that we should, step-by-step sleepwalk into a privatised health care system as they have making everyone think that people on benefites are scroungers then hell yes, they'd jump at the chance.

 

Fist bumping when celebrating removing people's working tax credits is an excellent example of the lovely people we have in government today.

 

Is that a yes or a no? You haven't commented on this link yet http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs.

[Colinjb]

Arbeit macht frei eh?

 

No, not at all. It's how you judge these things I suppose. You should understand that taking an all-encompassing view that everyone should not be dependent on the state is also a noble one but unfortunately it is not realistic. You have to understand that there are people in this society that will need help for the rest of their lives and just throw them essentially out on the street and say "hey, we're all in this together" is pretty bad.

 

The problem with such cuts is the use of a sledgehammer to crush a peanut. You can say "ooooh but the actual sick will be ok" but they wont and they haven't been so please, I just think a more tactful approach is needed other than hiring some French IT contractor to shave a certain figure off the benefit bill is wrong whilst you allow your media friends to publish how they're all pulling a sicky.

 

As usual there is always a crossover with these things. It's just a matter of what is leading the way. The cart or the horse?

 

Those that need help DO need the welfare state. I'm conservative, not monstrous.

 

So, how do you generate a system that is immune to abuse, can help those that need it and get the c*nts that undermine it for those that are needy back to work?

 

Whether it is better to be harsh or soft...? No right answer. It's personal preference. Both are undesirable.... So it ultimately comes down to what you prefer? Suffer now or suffer later? Because nothing is f**king perfect.

[Hockey_saint]

As usual there is always a crossover with these things. It's just a matter of what is leading the way. The cart or the horse?

 

Those that need help DO need the welfare state. I'm conservative, not monstrous.

 

So, how do you generate a system that is immune to abuse, can help those that need it and get the c*nts that undermine it for those that are needy back to work?

 

Whether it is better to be harsh or soft...? No right answer. It's personal preference. Both are undesirable.... So it ultimately comes down to what you prefer? Suffer now or suffer later? Because nothing is f**king perfect.

 

I think the best solution would have been to actually trust the highly paid GP's to provide an accurate view on disabled people's needs and not rely on a checkbox system with untrained staff simply because they're cheap. Politicians are like the sith; they're either right or wrong; there is no middle ground. To answer the question about if I think the tories would like to get rid of the NHS...well, it's a facit of big government and they've got some lovely friends in charge of private medical companies willing to offer them places on their boards so yes, of course they would.

 

Either way; I think every case needs to be taken into consideration and the problem is that this costs when it's cheaper to lump loads of people into one group and chuck one solution at them so that's what's happening.

[Colinjb]

I think the best solution would have been to actually trust the highly paid GP's to provide an accurate view on disabled people's needs and not rely on a checkbox system with untrained staff simply because they're cheap. Politicians are like the sith; they're either right or wrong; there is no middle ground. To answer the question about if I think the tories would like to get rid of the NHS...well, it's a facit of big government and they've got some lovely friends in charge of private medical companies willing to offer them places on their boards so yes, of course they would.

 

Either way; I think every case needs to be taken into consideration and the problem is that this costs when it's cheaper to lump loads of people into one group and chuck one solution at them so that's what's happening.

 

Another wonderful contradiction. Big Government........ Like the extended nation state that Labour prefer. Like in Coventry, the city that labour betrayed, my home city for a decade. A city that lost everything, yet still kissed Labour's arse.

 

On the GP's point, my highly paid GP, in the aforementioned Coventry, failed to spot a simple penicillin allergy in me with almost fatal consequences, and also failed to spot my other half's appendicitis....... There needs to be more then just personal discretion in these matters I feel.

 

And no, the Tories do not, and are not getting rid of the NHS. It is being funded better now then ever before...... As I said, as you ignore. It is personally, as a conservative, not a desire of mine to destroy the NHS or the welfare state.... And at least for the last 30 years that has simply not been the case. It just has to be FAIR!

 

As a question, under Labour was the NHS ever perfect? It's a marvelous political tool isn't it? Used as a weapon...... a stick to beat the other with....... Just what is the end game?

 

Do we not both want something fair? Strip away the socialist/capitalist dogma....... Don't we just want something fair? (now, try defining fair, hahaha!!!!!)

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[Hockey_saint]

Another wonderful contradiction. Big Government........ Like the extended nation state that Labour prefer.

 

And no, the Tories do not, and are not getting rid of the NHS. It is being funded better now then ever before...... As I said, as you ignore. It is personally, as a conservative, not a desire of mine to destroy the NHS or the welfare state.... And at least for the last 30 years that has simply not been the case. It just has to be FAIR!

 

As a question, under Labour was the NHS ever perfect? It's a marvelous political tool isn't it? Used as a weapon...... a stick to beat the other with....... Just what is the end game?

 

Do we not both want something fair? Strip away the socialist/capitalist dogma....... Don't we just want something fair? (now, try defining fair, hahaha!!!!!)

 

How's it being funded better than before? Labour ineffectively threw a lot more money at it than the current government have and not a lot changed but again; it's the way in which you target areas of the NHS I suppose, like I said before instead of just throwing one solution at it.

 

Also, they may have spent a lot on the NHS....But a lot of that has gone on this MASSIVE and unneeded restructuring job and a god-awful IT system that is not fit for purpose and not actually patients. Waiting times are up and shortages are abound. I'll give you one example actually, my nan, who's 85 and suffers from alzhiemers and is cared for by my 90 year old grandad had a fall in her upstairs bathroom the other week and obviously my grandad couldn't help much and they called an ambulance....any idea how long that ambulance took? 6 hours to arrive which is frankly disgusting.

[Colinjb]

How's it being funded better than before? Labour ineffectively threw a lot more money at it than the current government have and not a lot changed but again; it's the way in which you target areas of the NHS I suppose, like I said before instead of just throwing one solution at it.

 

Also, they may have spent a lot on the NHS....But a lot of that has gone on this MASSIVE and unneeded restructuring job and a god-awful IT system that is not fit for purpose and not actually patients. Waiting times are up and shortages are abound. I'll give you one example actually, my nan, who's 85 and suffers from alzhiemers and is cared for by my 90 year old grandad had a fall in her upstairs bathroom the other week and obviously my grandad couldn't help much and they called an ambulance....any idea how long that ambulance took? 6 hours to arrive which is frankly disgusting.

 

Way to focus on the NHS minutae rather then the bigger questions I posted. You Labour lot are all the same! Re-read my previous points and try again.

 

What is a perfect NHS exactly?

Don't we just want something fair?

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[St Chalet]

To be fair to Osborne he appears to have ****ed over everyone. The poor, the middle classes, freelancers and anyone earning over £150k

[Colinjb]

To be fair to Osborne he appears to have ****ed over everyone. The poor, the middle classes, freelancers and anyone earning over £150k

 

The first politician in modern history to be consistent across the board.

 

Lets face it, if you are going to be utterly hostile do it at the beginning of your remit..... not when you want further authority in 4 years time.

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[Hockey_saint]

Way to focus on the NHS minutae rather then the bigger questions I posted. You Labour lot are all the same! Re-read my previous points and try again.

 

What is a perfect NHS exactly?

Don't we just want something fair?

 

I'll put it like this: people make mistakes but I would prefer someone who has trained for years and years and is in the system to judge me than someone who has about as much medical knowledge as I who is pushing a few buttons.

 

Coventry is in the midlands and you know as well as I that the north tend to be more of a tradional labour stamping ground. People don't forget the way industry was slaughtered up there; it's not something most of us down south where, aside from shipping have we had much experience with...that's only a guess but I'll be honest, I think a lot of people would rather turn from labour to UKIP than to the tories.

 

Also, way to go on the left wing generalisation there!......Also, remember, "fair" is a very subjective word.

[Colinjb]

I'll put it like this: people make mistakes but I would prefer someone who has trained for years and years and is in the system to judge me than someone who has about as much medical knowledge as I who is pushing a few buttons.

 

Coventry is in the midlands and you know as well as I that the north tend to be more of a tradional labour stamping ground. People don't forget the way industry was slaughtered up there; it's not something most of us down south where, aside from shipping have we had much experience with...that's only a guess but I'll be honest, I think a lot of people would rather turn from labour to UKIP than to the tories.

 

Also, way to go on the left wing generalisation there!......Also, remember, "fair" is a very subjective word.

 

Fight fire with fire mate.

 

People do forget how industry was slaughtered up there. I attended University there in the hope of joining our Automotive industry only to see it vanish........ Peugeot/Chrysler/Talbot, London Taxis International, Jaguar. Survived Thatcher and Major..... died during Blair. The City lost it's means to exist, Detroit without the high rises. (Lti had a Chinese resurrection, big woo). And they still kissed Labour's arse... blinded by dogma, you could fit in well there...... well, until you call them Northern! haha.

 

Yes, Fair is subjective..... I'm looking for those very suggestions.

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[Hockey_saint]

Fight fire with fire mate.

 

People don't forget how industry was slaughtered up there........ Peugeot/Chrysler/Talbot, London Taxis International, Jaguar. Survived Thatcher and Major..... died during Blair. The City lost it's means to exist, Detroit without the high rises. (Lti had a Chinese resurrection, big woo). And they still kissed Labour's arse... you could fit in well.

 

Yes, Fair is subjective..... I'm looking for those very suggestions.

 

I think old Tarzan Hessletine put it best when he said that British industry cannot compete now and it wouldn't matter what government were in as to compete with places like India and China, we'd need robots and not people.

 

You know, I never actually liked him as a politician but I really wish today's Conservatives would listen to his moderate views than the woman he ousted. It just seems to me both parties are currently going around in a circle (and to veer a bit off course) I thought on news night yesterday when the tory MP said the conservatives had viable alternatives to David Cameron in George Osbourne and Boris Johnnson.....well, I thought she'd smoked something (Although I do see Boris about as left as Heath...which is more than Blair ever was).

[Colinjb]

I think old Tarzan Hessletine put it best when he said that British industry cannot compete now and it wouldn't matter what government were in as to compete with places like India and China, we'd need robots and not people.

 

You know, I never actually liked him as a politician but I really wish today's Conservatives would listen to his moderate views than the woman he ousted. It just seems to me both parties are currently going around in a circle (and to veer a bit off course) I thought on news night yesterday when the tory MP said the conservatives had viable alternatives to David Cameron in George Osbourne and Boris Johnnson.....well, I thought she'd smoked something (Although I do see Boris about as left as Heath...which is more than Blair ever was).

 

There are no real alternatives in any of the parties, that's the scary thing. David Cameron is the best we have. No politician is perfect, regardless of how good they are they need a counterpoint......... There is none worth their salt. Symptomatic of the worthless career politicians that blight our country. All of them should be barred from office on principle.

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[TheCholulaKid]

There are no real alternatives in any of the parties, that's the scary thing. David Cameron is the best we have. No politician is perfect, regardless of how good they are they need a counterpoint......... There is none worth their salt. Symptomatic of the worthless career politicians that blight our country. All of them should be barred from office on principle.

 

Jeez, you're beginning to talk as much sense as Batman.

[Colinjb]

Jeez, you're beginning to talk as much sense as Batman.

 

At least be specific how rather then simply tarring with a broad stroke. Calling names is just cheap my friend.

Edited 10 July, 2015 by Colinjb

[Jonnyboy]

Work and effort always has value. It's never for it's own sake.

 

It's one of those areas where socialism and capitalism share an odd cross over.

 

Hmmm, but value for who?

 

We need a global 4 day week movement.

[Colinjb]

Hmmm, but value for who?

 

We need a global 4 day week movement.

 

Who do you want value for?

[Jonnyboy]

Who do you want value for?

 

Most minimum wage workers bring value for the fat cats and shareholders.

[hutch]

If I could chip in with a comment, it seems to me that the tens of thousands of benefit fraudsters over the past couple of decades are far more culpable in depriving those truly in need of our help than those that just condemn the system.

 

Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime. Those that Hockey Saint speaks up for, rightly or wrongly, are paying the price for the long-term invalids with single-figure golf handicaps.

 

In my humble opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

Most minimum wage workers bring value for the fat cats and shareholders.

 

Do you think so? What would you consider to be a reasonable return on investment for a shareholder in today's financial environment?

[Hockey_saint]

If I could chip in with a comment, it seems to me that the tens of thousands of benefit fraudsters over the past couple of decades are far more culpable in depriving those truly in need of our help than those that just condemn the system.

 

Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime. Those that Hockey Saint speaks up for, rightly or wrongly, are paying the price for the long-term invalids with single-figure golf handicaps.

 

In my humble opinion.

 

But should people who are actually ill really pay the price for those that are not? shouldn't the system be fairer than that?

 

My point was really that if you are going to create a system to judge these things, do it correctly and don't shirk by paying peanuts to monkeys because you want to save some money in the name of austerity. I should say that I don't really have many views on tax credits though but again, it's more for me about doing a correct job.

[Johnny Bognor]

... was a socialist.

 

Yes, but Jesus had the luxury of feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. In essence, he was the perfect socialist because he could create things out of thin air, turn water into wine and heal the sick and make everything better.

 

Unfortunately, modern day socialists, unlike Jesus, don't have such powers. All they have is their airy fairy magic money tree which (as we all know), doesn't exist

[Jonnyboy]

Yes, but Jesus had the luxury of feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. In essence, he was the perfect socialist because he could create things out of thin air, turn water into wine and heal the sick and make everything better.

 

Unfortunately, modern day socialists, unlike Jesus, don't have such powers. All they have is their airy fairy magic money tree which (as we all know), doesn't exist

 

You're going to hell.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Yes, but Jesus had the luxury of feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. In essence, he was the perfect socialist because he could create things out of thin air, turn water into wine and heal the sick and make everything better.

 

Unfortunately, modern day socialists, unlike Jesus, don't have such powers. All they have is their airy fairy magic money tree which (as we all know), doesn't exist

 

I'm atheist but that's ********, Jesus didn't just go around doing miracles, he encouraged other people to share their wealth.

 

Mark 10:21

 

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

 

Luke 6:20-26*

 

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. ...

[SuperMikey]

I'm atheist but that's ********, Jesus didn't just go around doing miracles, he encouraged other people to share their wealth.

 

Mark 10:21

 

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

 

Luke 6:20-26*

 

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. ...

 

Are you Victor Wanyama?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm atheist but that's ********, Jesus didn't just go around doing miracles, he encouraged other people to share their wealth.

 

Mark 10:21

 

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

 

Luke 6:20-26*

 

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. ...

 

 

So•cial•ism (noun) \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

 

I didn't see "nationalisation" being mentioned in the bible when I was a kid.

 

If anything, private ownership was recognised and encouraged. The message of the bible is that the poor should be looked after by first the family, second the church and thridly individual charity.

[aintforever]

So•cial•ism (noun) \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

 

I didn't see "nationalisation" being mentioned in the bible when I was a kid.

 

If anything, private ownership was recognised and encouraged. The message of the bible is that the poor should be looked after by first the family, second the church and thridly individual charity.

 

Were there Churches in the Bible?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

So•cial•ism (noun) \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

I didn't see "nationalisation" being mentioned in the bible when I was a kid.

Can't see anything about magic money trees in your definition of socialism either

[Johnny Bognor]

Were there Churches in the Bible?

 

Yes there were. "On this rock, I build my Church", Jesus said to St Peter. When I use the word "church", I don't mean stone buildings with a spire. It is a group of people, bound by faith.

 

Can't see anything about magic money trees in your definition of socialism either

 

Yes not in the dictionary definition, but to make socialism work, you need them.

[buctootim]

Yes not in the dictionary definition, but to make socialism work, you need them.

 

You don't need them to make socialism work. You only need them to make tired and vacuous fallacies about socialism work.

[Colinjb]

Can't see anything about magic money trees in your definition of socialism either

 

No, they are not required. A complete bypass of human nature is however a pre-requisite.

 

If impossible, refer back to plan B.... Money tree.

Edited 16 July, 2015 by Colinjb