Is The Creation Of A Welfare Dependant Class Immoral?
Posted by truthtalklive on 9 September, 2009
This post was filed in Apologetics, Christian Living, Christianity, Government, Health, Politics and has 111 comments
What should the government’s responsibility be toward those considered by some to be “needy”?
With discussions about universal health care and with the passing of welfare champion Ted Kennedy, many are rethinking what the guidelines should be regarding society’s obligations to the poor. What is the truly Christian perspective? What did America’s founders intend?
Those questions and your calls today on Truthtalk Live with your host Alex McFarland, President of Southern Evangelical Seminary, America’s school for apologetics training.
INFO ON THE UPCOMING 2009 NATIONAL APOLOGETICS CONFERENCE HERE
Stay connected!
111 Comments on “Is The Creation Of A Welfare Dependant Class Immoral?”
This is much more of a question than an answer, but perhaps it will generate some discussion.
Consider how Christ’s judgment of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 begins (verses 31-32, NASB, emphasis mine):
But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
Now, I know that “all the nations” is a convenient way to say “all people”, and simply means that the judgment is universal. Still, of all the ways Jesus could have referred to everyone on Earth when describing this judgment, he chose to use terminology that included nations.
I don’t think this was a mistake; I’m inclined to believe that Christ chose His words carefully. Is it possible that He intended to show that taking care of the poor and helpless is the responsibility in some measure of society, not just individuals and not just Christians? Given how keen Christ was on helping out the poor, why would Christians balk at attempts to help them, regardless of the source of that help?
Of course, welfare is broken. I’d be the first to admit that when you try to be nice, there will inevitably be some who try to take advantage — and there are many ways in which welfare could probably be improved. These by themselves don’t seem to be reasons to withhold government help altogether, though.
What do you think?
One other thing: I applaud the guest for decrying an attitude that makes fun of kids who try to excel. I honestly don’t think welfare can be held to blame for that, though; it’s symptomatic of something much, much greater. Kids are made fun of for wanting to excel across the board.
There’s a general attitude out there that equates single-minded viciousness with having a “position”, that sets itself in direct opposition to careful thought and any vestige of intellectualism. It pains me to say that there are significant pockets of Christianity where this knee-jerk stubbornness is seen as a virtue.
As far as welfare perpetuating poverty, what of the fact that poverty levels were more than halved between 1959 and 1988 (from 23.1% to 10.5%, according to Rethinking Social Policy by Christopher Jencks)? It might be a mistake to give welfare all the credit, but it also seems to be a mistake to say that government programs are doing nothing.
I think that Christ did not tell us to love only those neighbors that are making what we consider to be smart choices, but to love our neighbors, period. There is always room for improvement in any program to help the poor, whether government or church-run. But there always needs to be programs to help the poor, both government and church-run, because Christ was very clear about that and so was God in the Old Testament through the prophets.
Job 34:17-19 “Can he who hates justice govern? Will you condemn the just and mighty One?
Is he not the One who says to kings, ‘You are worthless,’ and to nobles, ‘You are wicked,’ who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?”
Psalm 12:5 “‘Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise,’ says the LORD. I will protect them from those who malign them.”
Psalm 140:12 “I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy.”
Jeremiah 9:23-24 “This is what the LORD says: ‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the LORD.”
Luke 1:52-53 “He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”
Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”
Deuteronomy 26:12 “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”
Proverbs 31:8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
Isaiah 58:6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”
Matthew 5:42 “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
Luke 3:11 “John answered, ‘the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.’”
Exodus 22:21-27 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.”
Proverbs 14:31 “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”
Jeremiah 5:28 “‘Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. ‘Should I not punish them for this?’ declares the LORD. ‘Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?’”
Ezekiel 16:49 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
Just a few verses that might apply.
MattF: “As far as welfare perpetuating poverty, what of the fact that poverty levels were more than halved between 1959 and 1988 (from 23.1% to 10.5%, according to Rethinking Social Policy by Christopher Jencks)? It might be a mistake to give welfare all the credit, but it also seems to be a mistake to say that government programs are doing nothing.”
When did we become like the pagan Greeks and later Romans, who measured wealth by the “stuff” they owned? You do not improve the lot of the poor by giving them a roof over their heads, food stamps, and a government allowance while destroying the family. I grew up poor in an era when there were no government handouts. I did not know I was poor until my freshman year in college when my sociology professor had us fill in a survey. When all the surveys were turned in, I and one other student were the only two that fell in the “upper low income” bracket….we were the upper crust of the poor class.
More interesting is the fact that most of my friends and neighbors were in the same class, yet most lived with their biological parents and most turned out to be very successful people. Now compare this to the impact on the family of government benevolence and the social welfare state. Generations of welfare families have become part of the landscape. Government policy made it such that it forced or encouraged men to leave the household. Neighborhoods were destroyed by the government projects.
Our graduated income tax makes the accumulation of capital difficult. Capital accumulation is critical to anyone wishing to establish a business. The more you make the more you are taxed and thus it becomes more difficult to acquire the capital necessary to succeed in business. If you have a good year you are taxed heavily which leaves you more vulnerable in a lean year when you could have used the accumulated money the government took. Throw on top of everything government regulation (Fed, state, and local) and the small businessman has a tough time of it.
Finally, when government can just print the money its needs, inflation is the end result at which point the whole society suffers. But this issue is one that has been covered ad nauseum.
Here are two charts on the US dollar:
Daily: http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USD&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p28495791323
Weekly: http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USD&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p52988783222
The all time low in the USD was 70.70. At that time oil was $120 and rising towards $147. What do you think will happen to the poor and those on fixed incomes when the USD breaks to new lows? What will be the effects of high inflation or hyperinflation on our economy? How will this impact the work of the church as congregations are impoverished by government largess?
James Lewis has a brilliant piece featured in today’s Pajamas Media where he identifies the main reason why Obama and Congress should have no business trying to reform health care.
They’re ignoramuses about science:
Obama is a product of the non-scientific academic world, where Marxist pseudo-philosophy is popular, as long as the colleges themselves can live off the fat of the (capitalist) land. Our academics are revolutionaries who never take a personal risk, just like our Democrats. That’s why the philosophy behind Obama’s Marxoid takeover of our health care seems to be:
Who cares if we do harm? We’ll fix it later! If it’s politically convenient! Whatever we do cannot hurt the apparatchiks, the ruling elite, who will have their own medical system.
Congress and federal bureaucrats will keep their current insurance plans. Academics will keep their tenure and their soft lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers. It’ll be a two-layered system straight out of Soviet Moscow: the nomenklatura versus the workers.
ObamaCare is really, really cheap compared to that one billion dollars for testing a single drug. The cost of testing and developing HR 3200, the current and ever-changing plan for ObamaCare, is zerodollars – because no testing and development has ever been done on more than 1,000 complicated pages. The bill has been thrown together in back-room deals between lobbyists and staffers in Congress. It’s like a hugely complex computer program that’s never been tested to see if it will run.
How likely is it to work? It won’t, which is why there will be tens of thousands of pages of regulations. And if it runs, how likely is it to make one-sixth of the U.S. economy cheaper and better, as Obama claims?
This is the ultimate snake oil.
Written from the perspective of a scientist, and in Lewis’ inimitable style, James hammers Obama and his crew relentlessly for their ignorance and hubris.
Read the whole magnificent thing.http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-first-do-some-harm-%E2%80%94-then-exploit-the-crisis/
Kash: Post#4: All those scriptures are good ones and they are all about the individual’s responsabillities from the heart I might add.
kash: “There is always room for improvement in any program to help the poor, whether government or church-run.”
Somehow you believe there are better angels in government than in corporate America. Whatever gave that idea. Government; i.e. politicians are interest primarily in one thing, maintaining their power. The difference between government and corporations is that government can regulate corporation but no one regulates government.
In a democratic republic, we the people can regulate government but only to the extent that we are involved in the process. Then of course you have the Supreme Court that has overruled the will of the people on more than just a few occasions and gone way beyond the intent of the Constitution.
One more point. Nowhere in scripture will you find anything that says government should take money from one group of people (by force) and give it to another. That is a form of legalized theft. Jesus would never have supported such a system. Our giving to the poor is to come from the heart not through the police powers of government.
Mike: When did we become like the pagan Greeks and later Romans, who measured wealth by the “stuff” they owned?
As I understand it, the poverty level is defined by income. But do you think God had a different kind of “poor” in mind when He told His people over and over to take care of the widows, orphans, and strangers?
Fine job avoiding the question, though.
“Jesus would never have supported such a system.” But Jesus specifically did not speak out against paying taxes when the Pharisees tried to trick him into it, even though the system of taxation in place at that time was much more onerous and unfair than anything in modern society. Paul: What those scriptures show is that God is concerned about the well being of the poor, he is not worried about whether the rich are being unfairly (in their opinion) taxed.
From a minister named Monte Asbury: Suppose churches were to assume responsibility for a program like Medicaid. Ron Sider wrote:
“Medicaid alone in 1997 cost $172.5 billion. If the 325,000 religious congregations in the United States tried to shoulder that load, each local congregation would have to raise an extra $529,000 per year.”
Surely it’s much more than that by now, and for Medicaid alone.
Families and churches are called by God to be on the front lines. But perhaps the Bible’s view could be said like this: In a just society, every part of the culture has a role in reducing poverty. Perhaps the Bible is saying, “All hands on deck!”
Every few seconds, one of us on this planet dies of hunger. If I were that child’s daddy, I’d be crying for justice. Why should my baby die, just because I was born where food was scarce? Was it my baby’s fault?
In the USA, thousands of people die prematurely each year because they did not have health insurance. If I were the man who’d just seen his beloved wife rendered mute by a stroke because they couldn’t pay for blood-pressure medication, I’d be crying for justice. Why did she have to suffer? She worked hard all her life!
Government is obliged by God to correct and prevent injustice. Those who die needlessly have been coerced. It is immoral for government, church, or family to look the other way. It is a repudiation of the example of Jesus and a major theme of the entire Bible.
Will some abuse government money? Of course! Limiting abuse is challenging and important – even Biblical. But anger toward abuse must not become an excuse for abandonment of those who suffer. We must urge that government fulfill its role.
That people be required to share their wealth through taxation is doubtless not God’s first choice. But that government would decline to act on behalf of the poor where society has failed to do so would be a doubly egregious evil.
The webpage I copied it from has some other good points: http://masbury.wordpress.com/poverty-government-and-the-bible/
Paul quotes James Lewis. James Lewis has written copiously on how he fears Obama, although he tries to hide his fear in disdainful insulting untruths. Here is a quote from Lewis: “And yet the Obama “birther” debate is important. What’s important about it is the feeling a growing number of Americans have in their bones that Obama is foreign — to our traditions, loyalties and shared understandings about the nature of America. In a way the legal debate matters less than that bone-deep sense that Obama is fundamentally “Other than American.”
At least Lewis is honest enough to say what is really the problem: Obama doesn’t look like all the other presidents. Never mind the fact that his life is the embodiment of the American dream, that anyone, if they work and study hard can become president. James Lewis and those who think like him never really believed that anyway, they always wanted their Presidents to look like all the ones that had come before. Obama has more in common with most Americans than many of our previous presidents. He was raised by a single mom, was poor, had to depend on financial aid and scholarships to get through college rather than Daddy’s legacy. Many disparage him by saying he went to elitist schools (uhh, Bush went to Yale) ignoring that he started college at tiny Occidental College before transferring to Columbia. And I never remember the fact that a president went to a good college being held against him before. Obama is criticized for everything by those who are afraid of him because he looks different than what they like to see in the White House, even stuff that he has in common with every president before him! It is so obvious what the real issue is, here.
BTW, Paul, James Lewis seems to be a “nom de plume”, as this person gives no information as to what their true academic credentials are. Strange for a person who is so critical of the credentials of those who don’t see the world through his reconstructionist eyes.
“Somehow you believe there are better angels in government than in corporate America.” Don’t be ridiculous. But corporate America does not exist to serve the people, except for the profits of its shareholders. The government, on the other hand, exists just for that reason. Why would we expect corporate America to give a rat’s whisker about uninsured Americans or families unable to pay for good food and safe housing, even with one or both parents working full time?
Paul: “Academics will keep their tenure and their soft lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers.” Wasn’t it Mao and the Chinese revolution that forced the academics to work in the fields or be executed because they distrusted any learning that countered their own opinions? Hmmmm.
Mike: Nowhere in scripture will you find anything that says government should take money from one group of people (by force) and give it to another.
Really? What, then, was the tithe meant to be in Numbers and Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy 26:12 seems to indicate that some of the tithe was gathered and given to the poor (KJV):
When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;
Was it gathered by force? I don’t know; I’m inclined to think not, based on Deuteronomy 14. But there seems to be some precedent for using taxation for helping out the less fortunate. And what of the notion that we Christians are to submit to governmental authorities, unless they order us to do something Scripture expressly forbids?
MattF: First of all Mike didn’t avoid the question. “Given how keen Christ was on helping out the poor, why would Christians balk at attempts to help them, regardless of the source of that help?” He did answer the question but his answer didn’t fit your idea of helping the poor.
Secondly you said “Is it possible that He intended to show that taking care of the poor and helpless is the responsibility in some measure of society, not just individuals and not just Christians?” The bible gives plenty of examples of governments doing the wrong thing and not one example of them doing the right thing unless God intervened. Third, God has outlined an authority structure purtaining to the State (civil authorities), the Church, and the Family, and giving to the poor is not the civil authorities responsability.
Paul: First of all Mike didn’t avoid the question.
Sure he did. He implied that talking about material wealth was inappropriate (by likening the subject to the “pagan Greeks and later Romans”, he also neatly avoided all the places in the Bible stressing the importance of helping the poor where the poor are clearly defined by their economic status), and then veered into obstacles the government creates to block accumulation of material wealth (e.g., income tax); this might be seen as related to whether or not we ought to be balking at governmental attempts to help the poor, but it’s not an answer to it. It changed the question of whether into an answer addressing how. He also never answered the question about lowering poverty rates at all. How did he not avoid the question if he never answered it?
Paul: The bible gives plenty of examples of governments doing the wrong thing and not one example of them doing the right thing unless God intervened.
Romans 13 tells us that governments are in place as servants of God to punish wrongdoers. Every time they do that, aren’t they, in some sense, doing the right thing without supernatural intervention? What about places where the things governments do are largely left up to our imaginations, such as when 1 Kings 15:5 (NIV) tells us that David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite“?
Here’s what I’m getting at in an oblique way: It seems possible for governments to do the right thing, even when the right thing they do isn’t explicitly spelled out.
What about places in Scripture where societies at large are condemned for not helping the poor (e.g., Ezekiel 16:49)? Sure, you can point out that God was condemning the individuals in that society, and I wouldn’t disagree with you, but why isn’t restricting the passage to mean only that an interpretation predicated on your notion that it is only individuals that ought to be helping out the needy?
Paul: God has outlined an authority structure purtaining to the State (civil authorities), the Church, and the Family, and giving to the poor is not the civil authorities responsability.
Do you mean to say that certain kinds of active good should only be done by certain individuals or groups — otherwise, they’re not good? (Here I use “active good” to differentiate between doing something because it is good rather than in response to evil.) Do you mean to say that individuals or groups should only do the bare minimum of what God has outlined, and never attempt to do all the good they can? What exactly do you mean to assert by saying that “giving to the poor is not the civil authorities [sic] responsibility”?
Some might take the opposite tactic and point out that if something isn’t forbidden by Scripture and it is good, we can feel free to do it. Scripture never tells me that cleaning my neighbor’s bathroom for him is my responsibility, for example, but I believe that I honor God with such gestures.
What of Christ’s tale of the Good Samaritan? If the priest and the Levite had reasoned to themselves, “It’s not part of the social responsibility defined by my office to help someone beaten, robbed, and left for dead”, whether or not they were correct, would they have been right?
Kash: Ron Sider is just wrong but Monte Asbury makes some good points like this:”One’s hard work would bring rewards, yet not to the extent of oppression of others. One’s tragedy or laziness would bring loss, yet not a loss to one’s children’s innocent children. Both require both: character and justice. Character, of course, was developed in family and synagogue. Government’s role was to make certain justice reached the least. [By the way, I understand American law regulating corporate behavior was originally this way, and that the Founding Fathers saw the roles of government and corporation as adversarial: Government's role was to limit corporate power, and to advocate for the rights of individuals. How different from modern practice!]” But Asbury makes the same mistake in reading into the scriptures something that’s not there, like when he inserts government into the text. When the scriptures he sites talk about oppression it’s not just about the rich opressing the poor, opression comes in many forms.
MattF: It say’s in Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
The civil governments responsability is to bring justice according to the law of God, and like I said before God has an authority structure for the state, the church, and the family.
MattF: “Do you mean to say that individuals or groups should only do the bare minimum of what God has outlined, and never attempt to do all the good they can?” This is a matter of the heart
Paul: How is Ron Sider wrong? If government did not pay for any social welfare programs (as you propose) how would the churches possibly take up the slack? Answer: they couldn’t, and before we had such social welfare programs as food stamps and medicaid, they didn’t. If God is going to judge the entire nation because of abortion being legal and homosexuals not being stoned (as right wingers maintain), why is it that when it comes to a nation providing for the poor the right wingers suddenly claim it is an individual responsibility rather than the responsibility of the nation as a whole?
MattF:”Do you mean to say that certain kinds of active good should only be done by certain individuals or groups — otherwise, they’re not good? (Here I use “active good” to differentiate between doing something because it is good rather than in response to evil.)” Yes, the role of the civil government is for justice not for theft. Plus those good gifts that the Lord gives you, that you should give to the poor and will bring glory to God.
MattF: “As I understand it, the poverty level is defined by income. But do you think God had a different kind of “poor” in mind when He told His people over and over to take care of the widows, orphans, and strangers?”
My point was to inform those “mostly conservatives” that say the poor in America have it better than most people living in other countries. The poor here get government assistance through food stamps, housing subsidies, or the earned income tax credit. These suppliments allow the poor to have more stuff. So conservatives say that the poor have an automobile, a TV in their home, heat, and live in apartments with a bathroom and running water. Compare this to the poor in other countries that have none of that stuff.
Unfortunately the government ties so many strings to the goodies they offer the poor that the poor are made poorer when one uses other more important standards. Government housing destroyed neighborhoods. Welfare destroyed entire families and encouraged a cycle of poverty. Food stamps allowed some to use more of their cash for alcohol or drugs than they would have had if they had no food stamps at all.
Government does the worst job of allocating resources in an economy. This is a well known fact. Government contracts often go to the politically connected. Legislators get their pet projects, not because these projects will benefit the overall economy but because these projects will get them re-elected. THE GREED IS STILL EVER PRESENT, except government greed is the acquisition and expansion of power. The needs of the people are secondary. THEY TELL US THAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS FOR OUR SAKE BUT THE TRUTH IS, THEY USE OUR MONEY TO GET RE-ELECTED.
You people support the statists, I don’t. But don’t worry the days of King Dollar are numbered. Neither you or kash has a clue as to what forces are at work in the world as I write this message. But I am sure you will support the statists even as the economy continues is long term decline, inflation goes through the roof, more and more people lose their jobs and their homes, crime and civil unrest become everyday events, and those tied to the USD are impoverished. Of course the greedy businessmen or labor unions will be blamed. No politician will stand up and tell the American people, “WE DID THIS TO YOU. YOU DEMANDED MORE AND MORE FROM GOVERNMENT AND THIS IS WHAT GOVERNMENT DELIVERED….inflation / hyperinflation, high interest rates, and a falling economy.”
Gold hit $1013 this morning and is now trading at $1005. The USD is at 76.56 a mere .44 from its critical 76 support. YOU PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A CLUE…..NOT A SINGLE STINKING CLUE.
MattF: “he also neatly avoided all the places in the Bible stressing the importance of helping the poor”
We are to help the poor, that I never denied. What I said was that nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is Civil Government’s responsibility to take money from some to give it to others. And by the way, farm subsidies do not support the poor. There are many multimillionaires that government funds through our tax money. There are something like 17,000 lobbyists in Washington all seeking favors from the government. Then of course you have our Congress that has decided to go off on junkets throughout the world at tax payer expense. In 1995, Congressional foreign travel was 500 hours, today it is 3,000 hours. We pay taxes to set up agencies to protect the American people from criminals. Yet the SEC allowed and even provided the means for crooks to rob the American people of their life savings. Bernie Maddoff is just the tip of a very big iceberg. The SEC suspended rules that were in place since 1933 to prevent criminals from doing exactly what they did that brought our financial and economic system to a grinding halt. To date, nothing has been done to correct the problem.
You and kash are idealist. Rather than looking at exactly how things work you create a Polyannish world where the political system works for the benefit of the people. I don’t know whether you are ignorant or just plain stupid. Ignorant is not knowing, stupid is not wanting to learn.
MattF: “He also never answered the question about lowering poverty rates at all.”
First of all have a sound monetary system. FACT: Whenever governments provided a monetary system based on Gold and silver the people prospered. Of course things were not perfect, but overall people moved quickly out of poverty and the economy benefited.
EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT RESORTED TO DEBASING ITS MONEY OR USING A FIAT MONEY, the end results were always MORE POVERTY, VIOLENCE, CIVIL UNREST, and POOR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
The greatest advancements out of poverty were made when the US had a sound monetary system. Why do you think all those poor people left Europe during the 18th, 19th, and 20th century and came to America. The flood continued even as government continued its growth. It has now reached a point where government is choking the economy. All that government has done these past 15 years has led to the current crisis and will soon make the crisis even worse. I am sure we will get a bump up in the economy from the stimulus, but it won’t last and the end result will be much worse.
Remember you heard it all from Me and a few other like Doug Tjaden that are ringing the warning bell and trying to educate fellow Christians and anyone else who will listen. What I find so amazing is that more nonbelievers accept what the Bible says about diverse weights and measures than Christians.
Some people are just Stuck on Stupid.
kash: “Government’s role was to limit corporate power, and to advocate for the rights of individuals. ”
You mean like Goldman Sachs who just happens to have so many of its ex-employees working for past and present administrations. I guess we the people have hired 17,000 lobbyists to represent us in Washington.
A few years ago I was having an online debate with some folks investing in a green energy company. They believed that the new Democrat Congress would vote public money to innovative companies in renewable energy. I told the folks on that message board that if any money were allocated it would go to the Big boys and not the small businesses that were competing with the likes of Seimens, GE, etc. They thought for sure that their favorite small wind turbine company and small solar energy company would get the grant money. Both of these companies applied, both were turned down. The millions that were handed out went to companies that use such sums of money as petty cash. What could have helped some small businesses with some good ideas when to multinationals with billions of dollars in their coffers. So much for helping the little guy.
Then there is the case of naked short selling, which is basically counterfeiting stock ownership. The uptick rule was imposed after the 1929 Market crash to prevent plungers from reaping huge profits by destroying companies. Chris Cox, appointed by G. Bush 43, dropped that rule a few years ago and more than just a few companies have seen their share price destroyed and therefore their company by criminal aimed at manipulating the market for their own benefit. I would not be surprised to discover someday that Organized Crime set up off shore accounts to make billions of dollars while the American worker saw his 401k or pension fund wiped out.
Bernie Madoff was part of the system. The SEC was warned and given proof that he was running an illegal operation and they did nothing. The SEC dropped the ball when they knew what financial institutions were up to as they made billions selling worthless toxic paper (OTC derivatives) that have brought on all this misery.
WHAT I GIVE YOU IS THE REAL WORLD. What you live in is La La land.
MattF, have I answered your questions?
You believe in the goodness of the state. I don’t. As a young teen I heard all the promises of the state through the Cuban Revolution. What the people got was misery beyond belief.
No corporation ever drafted a young man and forced him to fight a war for the benefit of the state. I had some friends that returned from Vietnam that were never the same and a few that came back in body bags. I believe that the last just war we fought was WW II and maybe Desert Storm.
Read this article if you dare to learn the truth. Remember while the truth will set you free, it will also cause great discomfort as you come to grips with all the lies you swallowed.
CONSEQUENCES” cannot be voided by any method. They will occur. From the last paragraph in the article: “In the end, what is the most frustrating facet of these huge con games executed by the financial oligarchs is that the group of people that this article is most intended to help is often the group of people that will take most offense to this article and most steadfastly refuse to see the truth. ” Is this you MattF and kash?
The Coming Consequences of Banking Fraud
September 09, 2009
J. S. Kim
The Double Dip Recession, or the “W” shaped recovery that a minority of economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz, is now stating as a strong possible outcome of this current rally, should not be discussed in the realm of economics but rather in the more apropos realm of financial fraud. The fact that the upleg of the “W” shaped recovery that is occurring now will inevitably crumble in spectacular fashion will not be a result of any free market principle, but rather the direct consequence of a fraudulent scheme executed by an elite global financial oligarchy, otherwise known as Central Banks. If the mission of this current manufactured leg-up in Western stock markets was to fool the world into believing that global economies are recovering, then clearly, up until this point, the mission has been a resounding success. For those unfamiliar with the term “blowback”, it’s a CIA term that was first used in March 1954 to describe the unintended consequences of US government international activities kept secret from the American people.
Though this term has primarily been used to describe the consequences of covert military operations, “blowback” is an appropriate term to use to describe the coming consequences of banking fraud because the US government, US Federal Reserve, Wall Street, the US Treasury, and the Exchange Stabilization Fund have all engaged in domestic and international financial and monetary transactions that have been kept secret from the world, and that will have severe and negative consequences in the not so distant future. In fact, I predict that the blowback of these activities will not only exceed, but far exceed, the fallout the world experienced in 2008 at the prior apex of this current crisis. Most people today can not even fathom how bad the situation will become primarily because of all the secrecy that the banksters have engaged in – in US Treasury markets, the gold markets, the US dollar markets, agriculture commodities, stock markets, and financial markets – in hiding reality from the people………………………….
For example, consider the following stories:
Demographers recently reported that Florida, the state known as the “mecca” for wealthy retirees in America, suffered its first population decline last year in more than 60 years, an event that delineates the collapse in wealth of American retirees and an event that is likely to repeat this year.
At the end of this past July, one of the largest ports in America, Long Beach, reported that the 20% year-over-year cargo business decline is among the sharpest since the Great Depression. This is not a trend specific to Long Beach. “It’s phenomenal how much things fell away even since December,” said Paul Bingham, managing director of global trade and transportation for IHS Global Insight, the business research firm that monitors North America’s biggest ports for the National Retail Federation.
As of September 4, 2009, shadowstats.com reported that unemployment in the US is now near 21% and is showing no signs of improving any time soon (when factoring in discouraged workers, part-time workers that can’t find full-time work, unemployed workers that have fallen off the unemployment roll, etc.). In fact, yesterday, Manpower’s Employment Outlook Survey reported that US employers’ hiring plans for the upcoming fourth quarter dropped to the lowest level in the history of its survey which dates back to 1962.
On August 15th, when BB&T (BBT) purchased failed US bank Colonial Bank, it wrote down Colonial Bank’s loans and real estate collateral by 37% and Colonial Bank’s construction loans by 67%. Yes, 67%! The severe markdowns of Colonial Bank’s assets should have set off warnings akin to a five-alarm fire among the financial media, but it did not, for the media increasingly caters to the interests of the elite bankers of this world at the cost of truth and freedom. If there are several things we can deduce from Colonial Bank’s failure, it is the following.
Though the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) refuses to disclose the names of the banks on its “watch list”, it can be safe to assume that a bank just does not go bankrupt overnight and that the process of going bankrupt can be predicted many months in advance by personnel with access to a bank’s financial statements and knowledge of its true financial condition. In fact, various newspaper articles reported that Colonial Bank was in negotiations with the FDIC as early as March, 2009, yet not one time, did the FDIC force Colonial Bank to come clean regarding its true financial health before it finally shuttered the bank five months later.
The fact that the FDIC is spotting massive trouble in the American banking system and covering it up should be massively worrisome to Americans. Because revelations regarding the truth about a US bank’s health only seem to occur after it fails, the favored handling of American banks with kid gloves by the FDIC should immediately beg the question, “How many more US banks are legitimately bankrupt today and just operating on fumes?”
Personally, I would not be surprised if sometime within the next six months, a considerably larger US bank failure causes a massive ripple effect of much greater consequence. Banks that are currently struggling with unreported and covered-up deepening problems of loan delinquencies such as Wells Fargo (WFC), may be among the large banks that are candidates for future bankruptcy despite the public categorization of such institutions in the “too-big-to-fail” category. Unfortunately, Wells Fargo, from a political standpoint, does not have the “most favored bank” status of a Citigroup (C) or JP Morgan (JPM), two institutions deserving of bankruptcy but clearly favored by the US Federal Reserve and the US government.
When one considers the fact that all government or state produced economic statistics have been massively distorted towards the side of optimism and away from reality throughout this global financial crisis, one should be even more worried when the occasional sparse negative statistic is reported, for it is likely that these statistics too are misrepresenting the truth. Thus, in the face of all negative news that points to zero foundation and zero economic structural improvements, how has a multi-month stock market rally been able to spread across Asia, Europe and the US? Again, the answer is fraud, and thus should be analyzed through the prism of fraud and not the false prism of “economics”. There is no “economics” behind this latest global stock market rally, only fraud.
For many weeks in August, just four stocks accounted for as much as 40% of composite volume on the NYSE: Citigroup, Bank of America (BAC), Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM). In early 2007, Citigroup, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for roughly 1% -3% of NYSE volume, a far cry from its recent 35%+ collective weight of the composite NYSE volume. Remember that this huge volume anomaly persisted not just for one day but for weeks on end during August. If Citigroup, Bank of America, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a pharmaceutical collective that just discovered a cure for cancer and AIDS, then such volume anomalies would make sense. However, such massive trading volumes, as a percent of composite volume for the entire NYSE index, makes zero sense for companies, that for all intents and purposes, are on government bailout lifelines. It makes no sense, that is, unless massive free-market intervention is occurring in an attempt to save these firms.
Again, when viewed through the “fraud prism”, such activity makes complete sense. It is obvious that the “Rise of the Machines” has created markets that are now dominated by computerized high frequency trading programs that can execute trades as quickly as 0.5 milliseconds and have as their sole purpose the creation of short-term market distortions driven by statistical arbitrage that can be used to game the system and cheat their clients. Though this link describes how this scheme works in commodity markets for those that have been following the New York Stock Exchange, the use of high frequency trading programs to game the system at the expense of the retail investor has been glaringly obvious especially in the trading behavior exhibited this past summer.
The ironic part of this huge scam that has merely just re-inflated another massive stock market bubble is that the segment of the public that is so easily angered by government bailouts, billion dollar bonus plans for Wall Street executives and the chicanery of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs (GS) (and justifiably so), are the very same people that so passively accept the mountain of lies that passes for financial reporting today (inexplicably so). It is ironic that this same collective of people, instead of rejecting this mountain of lies, continues to listen to their financial advisers at global commercial investment firms, even though these advisers are the same group of people that miserably failed to see the crash that started in the spring of 2008, when the factors behind the pullback back then was just as clear as the factors behind the future pullback that will occur in the near future. It is ironic that this same group of people continues to support, participate and fund a system that cares only about using their clients’ money to lie, cheat and steal from them when a simple withdrawal of funds from the system is the antidote to ignorance-induced paralysis that will once again create massive crisis-induced losses in the future. Pulling one’s money from one’s current firm and switching to another firm that participates in this web of lies and deceit is not a solution either.
It is ironic that it is the same group of people that so readily accepts the Western media’s correct analysis of China’s stock market as a huge bubble through the lens of Austrian economic principles that simultaneously rejects any similar notion as applicable to US or UK stock markets, and instead, readily embraces heavily flawed and unsound Keynesian economic principles when evaluating Western stock markets. It is ironic that the same group of people that foolishly equates being “American” with blind support of the US stock market (i.e. “being bearish on the US market is un-American!”) is also completely ignorant of both the massive fraud that is perpetrated in US stock markets as well as the tenets of the US Constitution that sound great objections and warnings to the ruinous and foolish monetary policies that are implemented by bankers as their “solution” to our current economic crisis. And finally, the greatest irony of all is that the anger that brews inside those that have been tragically hurt by this crisis can coexist with the failure to recognize that it matters not in America if the President has the last name Clinton, Bush or Obama – that monetary and fiscal agenda inside the US for the last 17 years has not wavered nor changed one iota during this period of time because it was not these men that have been in charge of the economy but the men that manufactured these men’s rise to power and that control the US Federal Reserve and the world’s Central Banks, and thus the global monetary policy.
If one can not see the connection between Presidents, Prime Ministers and the banking families that rule Central Banks, one merely needs to open up a newspaper and follow their lives after they leave government office. It is not just a coincidence that ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after leaving office, took a part-time consulting job with JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon that reportedly pays him $5 million per year as well as another well-paid consulting position with Zurich Financial Services. In office, Mr. Blair was a consultant to the banking oligarchs in secret; out of office, he is free to be a consultant publicly. And one can be certain that current UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President Barack Obama will be offered very considerable salaries and fees by the world’s top financial oligarchs as thanks for their current and past service to them once they leave office as well (especially Gordon Brown, for selling out his countrymen and selling more than half of England’s bank reserves to ensure that the financial oligarchs could maintain the US dollar as the de-facto international currency for 10 additional more years than it deserved to hold this status).
In the end, what is the most frustrating facet of these huge con games executed by the financial oligarchs is that the group of people that this article is most intended to help is often the group of people that will take most offense to this article and most steadfastly refuse to see the truth. Instead, they will only realize the truth when the economic future unfolds to the blueprint of those of us the media labels as “gloom and doomers” because we base our predictions on reality instead of fantasy and lies. Instead of labeling us as “gloom and doomers”, if the media at large ever conducted an unbiased analysis of the predictions of the “gloom and doomers” for the past 3 years, they would discover that the “gloom and doomers” have been spectacularly accurate in the majority of their calls while the financial demagogues they continually fawn over (that only serve the interests of the bankers) have been spectacularly wrong in the vast majority of their predictions. Yet, those that serve the international banking cartel with glowing and rosy predictions of economic recovery never suffer the negative consequences of being wrong all the time as the mass media all too happily continues to provide the largest public platform and the loudest voices to these people. Perhaps, if it is accurate to label “gloom and doomers” as realists, then one should label the optimists that make their calls based upon perpetrated fraud as banking shills and cogs in the investing machine, for their societal contribution of greatest significance is an opiate cocktail for the masses that is a mixture of deceit and lies mixed with unbridled optimism.
As they often say that life imitates art, I close my article today with a speech from the film “V for Vendetta” that is frighteningly relevant if you listen to this speech with a critical ear and replace the references to the war on terror in this speech with the current war the bankster fraudsters are committing against the people. A sound money backed by precious metals, can be the people’s liberation from this war. Anything that falls short of such a solution will be just another scam in an already long line of scams, of a solution sold to the masses, that in reality, is no solution at all.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/160619-the-coming-consequences-of-banking-fraud?source=article_sb_popular
Paul, you maybe the only person on this message board that makes any economic sense from the Biblical and secular point of view. MattF and kash live in a world of make believe where government works for the benefit of the people. The only time government does this is when its powers are limited which is why the founders gave us a Constitution with a lot of Government shall NOT.
Over the two centuries since our Constitution was signed, sealed, and delivered we have undone most of it and now we have a Government Which Shall…..or worse yet Government Must.
It was Wall Street’s takeover of government which brought us the crisis we are now facing. The human suffering is deepening as more people lose their jobs and their homes. Many of the recent foreclosures have been due to unemployment and not to speculation. Families are breaking up because of the financial / economic crisis we are now in. The sad part is the worst is still ahead of us. Now the Alt A, Jumbo, and Prime loans are starting to blow up which will soon be followed by Commercial Real Estate loans and Credit Card loans going in the toilet. All the while the Government continues going into debt, which is being purchased by the Fed with newly printed money……the Balance Sheets of the Fed and the US government look horrendous. All the while the world is calling for a new global reserve currency to replace the US dollar while Tiny Tim Geitner of the Treasury thinks a devalued dollar will stimulate our economy!!! The only thing that will get stimulated is rising prices due to all the monetary inflation now sloshing in the system. When the flood gates open, and they will, the American people will see their life savings vanish before their very eyes. It is Weimar Germany 1921 – 22 all over again. Let’s pray we do not see Weimar Germany 1924, which marked the end of the Reich Mark as the government introduced the Retten Mark to replace it at an exchange rate of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1.
Why is it that people cannot see what is happening. MattF and kash have consistently glossed over the fact that our debt now exceeds $11 trillion and a new ceiling was established at $12 trillion. Throw in unfunded liabilities with conservative estimates at or over $60 trillion, and the facts point to a nation that is broke. Yet our politicians continue to spend and bailout then spend and bailout some more. Government programs fail and these fools call for more government.
The government could not even run a $3 billion Cash for Clunkers efficiently but many believe they can run a $2 trillion health care system. Cash for Clunkers turned out to be a fiasco that cost money and did little to stimulate the US economy. We now know that foreign car manufactures received the lion’s share of the stimulus and the US car companies that did benefit bought many of their parts from overseas suppliers. In the mean time the elimination of the used cars will likely drive up used car prices. For those that had purchased fuel efficient cars and were denied Cash for Clunkers, they certainly learned the lesson of always try to do the right thing. Anyone wanting to purchase a new car in the future will now wait for the next government Cash for Clunkers handout.
How stupid can people be? I think I am getting the answer to that question.
“Cash for Clunkers turned out to be a fiasco that cost money and did little to stimulate the US economy. We now know that foreign car manufactures received the lion’s share of the stimulus and the US car companies that did benefit bought many of their parts from overseas suppliers. In the mean time the elimination of the used cars will likely drive up used car prices.” Ummm, you seem to ignore the fact that many ‘foreign cars’ are built here in the US. I happen to live in an area very excited because Volvo is coming to nearby Chattanooga, TN which means good jobs and great benefits for some American workers. And Cash for Clunkers DID stimulate the auto industry, even though those of you who depend on bad news to survive are doing your best to ignore it. In fact, several plants stayed open instead of closing or called back laid off workers because of the bump. Sure, it MIGHT turn out to be temporary, but temporary puts food on the table and keeps people out of bankruptcy.
Paul: The civil governments responsability is to bring justice according to the law of God
Sure. I don’t disagree with that. What I’m asking is whether or not government ought to do only that — whether or not the only good government is capable of is to be a terror to evildoers.
Do you believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ? If so, would Christ’s rulership address the problem of poverty? If so, why is it a bad thing for governments to emulate — in a very small measure — what Christ would do in their office?
Paul: This is a matter of the heart
So, wait. Whether or not a certain action is right or wrong is a matter of the heart? I agree that motivation certainly factors into the excellence ro nobility of an act, but I don’t agree that doing the right thing is determined by whether or not your heart’s in it. I mean, one should be honest because it’s right, not because one feels like it, correct? Jesus seems to have argued this way Himself (Matthew 21:28-31a, NASB):
“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”
Paul: Yes, the role of the civil government is for justice not for theft.
That’s kind of a separate point. Why is this theft? Is it the simple act of taxation? Is it taxation when the money is used for purposes with which you disagree? Is it because Person A had it once, and now Person B has it?
Paul: Plus those good gifts that the Lord gives you, that you should give to the poor and will bring glory to God.
I agree. But that’s not what we’re talking about.
Mike: Unfortunately the government ties so many strings to the goodies they offer the poor that the poor are made poorer when one uses other more important standards.
Yes. I get it. Your point is that the government is doing it wrong. On that we agree. It seems to me that most thinking people would agree that the government is doing it wrong.
I meant to get at a more fundamental question, though: Should the government be giving assistance to the poor at all?
Mike: Welfare destroyed entire families and encouraged a cycle of poverty. Food stamps allowed some to use more of their cash for alcohol or drugs than they would have had if they had no food stamps at all.
I don’t doubt your anecdotes, but I must ask: Do you have numbers? How often does this abuse occur? I need to ask because the numbers I have seem to indicate that most of the time, welfare isn’t nearly enough to get by, never mind get “extras” like liquor and drugs.
I’m not sure that’s our problem, anyway. Sure, the system could always be more streamlined and less prone to fraud than it is, but that’s always going to be the case. Consider the act of giving a few bucks to someone who seems down on his luck. Are you to blame if he then goes and spends the money on things you wouldn’t have wanted him to spend the money on? Once the money is his, it’s his choice, isn’t it?
Why shouldn’t people both try to encourage people to use their money wisely and help those who are hurting instead of assuming that you just can’t have both?
Mike: What I said was that nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is Civil Government’s responsibility to take money from some to give it to others.
I know. But does that therefore mean that it is wrong for civil government to do so? That’s what I’m asking.
Mike: And by the way, farm subsidies do not support the poor.
I never meant to imply that they do. I only meant to point out that our government gives at least as much money to the rich as it does to the poor, and that one rarely hears any complaints about the money given to the rich from the conservative side of the table.
Mike: Rather than looking at exactly how things work you create a Polyannish world where the political system works for the benefit of the people.
And you create strawman opponents and debate with those rather than answering the questions posed to you.
I stated at the beginning — the very first post! — that the way the government is doing it is deeply flawed (“Of course, welfare is broken”). I do not disagree with the notion that the government will often hurt the governed with whatever means it has at its disposal. However, it seems to me that a mechanism whereby the government uses some of its funds to help the poor is a good thing. Relating welfare levels to poverty levels in our country seems to show that something good is being done, even if it’s not even close to the best thing.
Mike: MattF: “He also never answered the question about lowering poverty rates at all.”
First of all have a sound monetary system.
Once again, you’re dodging the question. I’m not asking how it could be improved. I’m asking whether it should be done.
Mike: You believe in the goodness of the state.
And, once again, you raise strawman opponents.
I believe that it is possible for the state to be compelled to do good things. This does not mean that I believe that the state, when free to choose its action, will decide to do good things.
Mike: No corporation ever drafted a young man and forced him to fight a war for the benefit of the state.
No. But corporations have their own litanies of evil deeds. To them, what matters is the bottom (profit) line, not what matters to the individual. They have historically shown — as has government — that given license to do so, or even if they just think they can get away with it, they will cause people to suffer for their own interests.
Mike: MattF and kash live in a world of make believe where government works for the benefit of the people.
I believe government can be made to work for the benefit of the benefit of the people. It makes no sense to state that all government is bad — otherwise, we should be arguing for anarchy.
That said, what kinds of things would be good to make the government do? I argue that a program that tries to give money to those in need is a good thing. (Do you honestly think that government wants to hand out tax revenues?) Not all governments can do such a thing, but ours has been, and it seems like having it has done more good than not having it.
Mike: MattF and kash have consistently glossed over the fact that our debt now exceeds $11 trillion and a new ceiling was established at $12 trillion.
Because that’s a different topic. “Should governments do this if they can?” is not the same question as “Should our government be doing this right now?”
MattF:”What I’m asking is whether or not government ought to do only that — whether or not the only good government is capable of is to be a terror to evildoers.
Do you believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ? If so, would Christ’s rulership address the problem of poverty? If so, why is it a bad thing for governments to emulate — in a very small measure — what Christ would do in their office?”
First of all government should what God has given them authority to do and only that.
Secondly in Christ’s millennial reign there won’t be any poverty.
Third, You think man emulating Christ’s headship and breaking God’s law leads to eliminating poverty, you don’t understand how wicked the heart of man is. That’s why God has an authority structure for us to obey. If we don’t, (which we haven’t for decades) we reap God’s judgement.
MattF:
That’s kind of a separate point. Why is this theft? Is it the simple act of taxation? Is it taxation when the money is used for purposes with which you disagree? Is it because Person A had it once, and now Person B has it?
It’s not a seperate point at all, it’s theft by ballot box, it’s a violation of God’s authority structure. You see God’s authority structure is like a pyramid, with the smallest amount of power at the top the church in the middle and the family at the bottom. It’s the family that has the broadest range of authority. And no it’s not just because I disagree, it’s because God say’s not too.
Plus those good gifts that the Lord gives you, that you should give to the poor and will bring glory to God.
”
I agree. But that’s not what we’re talking about.”
Yes it is, It all goes back to who’s in charge, who gives those good gift’s and what your going to do with them.
Paul: This is a matter of the heart
So, wait. Whether or not a certain action is right or wrong is a matter of the heart? I agree that motivation certainly factors into the excellence ro nobility of an act, but I don’t agree that doing the right thing is determined by whether or not your heart’s in it. I mean, one should be honest because it’s right, not because one feels like it, correct? I never said feeling did I. Do you not get this, and what does God say about the heart?
Paul: First of all government should what God has given them authority to do and only that.
Interesting idea. I’m more inclined to think that goodness is something to be pursued, even if the kind of good that one is capable of is not comprehensively defined.
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
I think that (James 4:17, NASB) applies to everyone — individuals, corporations, governments, what have you. Sin is not only what we do that it is wrong, but what we don’t do that is right. I also note that there are many places in the Old Testament where God calls nations out for not caring for the needy. I freely admit ignorance on this, but do you have any indication that these condemnations are not meant to include the governments of these nations (only the people)?
I also see that certain kinds of taxation (e.g., the tithe and the “tithe of the tithe”) were ordered by God in part to allow for giving money to people who didn’t have much. Why was it appropriate in this case, but not in general?
Paul: Secondly in Christ’s millennial reign there won’t be any poverty.
Well, yes, agreed, but why not? I’d think it was because Christ was in charge. Or will the average citizen simply be more generous during the millennial reign?
Paul: Third, You think man emulating Christ’s headship and breaking God’s law leads to eliminating poverty, you don’t understand how wicked the heart of man is.
Whoa, wait a second. I have no problem with the idea that man’s heart is a wicked thing [Jeremiah 17:9], but I’m still stuck on the notion that there are certain good things which governments should not do. Sure, there are specific things that they should do, and it might or might not be related to its stated purpose, but these are different from saying that there are certain things that they shouldn’t do, right?
It’s possible that there’s a passage I’ve missed or that isn’t coming to me at the moment, but I can’t think of a place where your idea that certain institutions are restricted to certain kinds of good is spelled out. If it isn’t spelled out which kinds of good that, say, governments ought to refrain from doing, why should I believe that your picture of “God’s authority structure” is accurate, and why should I believe that God’s law is being broken?
On the other hand, if it is spelled out somewhere, please let me know where; obviously, if God has something to say on the matter, we need to obey it. I’m here to learn.
Paul: It’s not a seperate point at all, it’s theft by ballot box, it’s a violation of God’s authority structure.
I’ll grant you this point if you can show where the idea of government giving to the poor is a violation of God’s intent from Scripture. I’m not talking about what God says government should do; I’m talking about what God says government should not do.
Paul: You see God’s authority structure is like a pyramid, with the smallest amount of power at the top the church in the middle and the family at the bottom. It’s the family that has the broadest range of authority. And no it’s not just because I disagree, it’s because God say’s not too.
An interesting picture, and perhaps one that would greatly aid my understanding. What do you have to support the idea? And what’s at the top of your “pyramid”?
Paul: I never said feeling did I. Do you not get this, and what does God say about the heart?
Ah, we’re talking about the Biblical notion of the heart, not the popular notion of the heart. Sorry, I misunderstood.
Okay. So let me start with basic assumptions. Is giving to the needy solely a matter of the heart? Are individuals the only entities capable of having hearts? How does the responsibility of the church factor in?
MattF: I also see that certain kinds of taxation (e.g., the tithe and the “tithe of the tithe”) were ordered by God in part to allow for giving money to people who didn’t have much. Why was it appropriate in this case, but not in general?
Are you saying that our secular government should [take the place of an individual's heart and] forcibly collect a tithe/tax for the needy? If the government is taking care of the poor (through forced taxation), then our individual ability to voluntarily give is hindered. Besides, I don’t like the thought of government taking my money to help the poor – because I’d like to do that at my own discretion. I don’t so blindly hand out money – I help those who I see need help, and those who are willing to waste help will not be helped. I know the people. For this reason, I think it’s better to keep things local, in this case especially… I would also question our government’s motives for handing out money to the poor (e.g. is the government really looking out for the poor’s best interests)?
Poor people should come to rely on the people near them (in times of need), not faceless government institutions (which is far easier to exploit). Surely that would be more encouraging to social cohesion and economic mobility. Creating/encouraging a government-dependent class doesn’t seem quite right to me, nor does stealing money to redistribute illegitimately/improperly, etc.
b! Haven’t seen you in a while! Good to hear from you!
b baggins: Are you saying that our secular government should [take the place of an individual's heart and] forcibly collect a tithe/tax for the needy?
It seems like giving to the needy is a good thing. It also seems that there is Biblical precedent for using taxation to care for the needy (unless I misunderstand the tithe). It also seems like this practice has, in recent decades, resulted in reduced poverty levels (by two thirds from 1950 to 1980 — and per capita welfare payouts peaked at a time when poverty rates were appreciably shrinking). Pending better information, I fail to see what’s wrong with it (in theory — in practice, of course, a program like this could be a lot more effective and well-run than our current welfare system). So, if it’s good, and there’s nothing wrong with it, why wouldn’t it?
b baggins: If the government is taking care of the poor (through forced taxation), then our individual ability to voluntarily give is hindered.
Perhaps. The determination to help the needy with the blessings God has given us seems to vary from individual to individual, even from church to church. If poverty levels are any indication, the government stepping in with a flawed program has done more to help the needy than individuals who didn’t have to pay for it (and who, presumably, had the extra money beforehand). If you have some other metric to determine the effectiveness of helping the poor and why individuals were or would be better at it if they had the money to themselves, please share.
b baggins: Besides, I don’t like the thought of government taking my money to help the poor – because I’d like to do that at my own discretion.
I understand your preferences. And you’re still free to do both, of course. But if we look at this from the point of view of what seems to be reducing poverty levels, welfare has been more effective than individual gifts. Whether or not people were capable of helping more without paying taxes to pay for welfare, they weren’t. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, welfare seems to alleviate suffering.
b baggins: I don’t so blindly hand out money – I help those who I see need help, and those who are willing to waste help will not be helped.
Very savvy of you. But in the Bible’s many injunctions to help the poor, I don’t see qualifiers — e.g., “Help those who won’t waste it”. It seems that a wise person who still aims to help will adjust his giving strategy so as to help the most, and there’s no question that welfare needs adjustment. It’s certainly wasteful, but even so, it seems to be doing some good — more good even than individuals (who one might think were more flexible in the kind of help they could give) were doing.
b baggins: I would also question our government’s motives for handing out money to the poor (e.g. is the government really looking out for the poor’s best interests)?
Probably not. People — and governments — don’t really tend to do active good on their own.
But the end result of what we have is that people are being helped. Sure, we can condemn the motives of a philanthropist all we want, but if what he’s doing is helping, are we right to refuse his gifts? Are we right to prevent him from giving to others who are suffering?
We also live in a system where policies and laws can be changed. If a governmental action is not behaving in the best interests of the needy, that action can be altered if enough people care about it. This is essentially what lies behind my point that government may not desire to do good, but it can be compelled to do good if the people are decent enough. (And if they’re not decent enough, why would anyone argue that individual giving would be preferable?)
b baggins: Poor people should come to rely on the people near them (in times of need), not faceless government institutions (which is far easier to exploit). Surely that would be more encouraging to social cohesion and economic mobility.
If the ability of different locations to alleviate suffering were more or less equivalent, I might agree with you. As it is, if you investigate which states pay the most to the federal government and which states get the most benefits from the federal government, you’ll see that, paradoxically, the biggest drain on public resources are the states who (oddly enough) tend to vote for Republicans (who tend to cut social spending) — the Southern and Western states — and the ones who donate the most, the states of the Northeast, tend to vote for Democrats (who tend to stand for social spending).
Simply put, not all areas have equal ability to help the poor. Why should the poor in less affluent parts of the nation suffer for this? If anything, social cohesion may be aided by government handouts, since the poor have less impetus to try to get to a place where the poor suffer less.
I’m not sure how economic mobility would be aided more through local donations than through federal payout. Can you give me reasons why this might be so?
b baggins: Creating/encouraging a government-dependent class doesn’t seem quite right to me, nor does stealing money to redistribute illegitimately/improperly, etc.
Fine. But let me repeat: poverty levels have gone down as a result of welfare. People have been lifted out of a need to depend on handouts at a greater rate with welfare in place than without. If anything, welfare seems to be helping to eliminate the numbers of people who might be a “government-dependent class”. Sure, there might be individual exceptions, but the numbers are shrinking.
If redistribution of resources is “stealing”, why was Israel’s government ordered to do it in Deuteronomy? Under what circumstances is it good, and when is it stealing?
(Note that redistribution of resources can occur without pretending that it’s desirable to have government control all resources, as is modeled in Deuteronomy.)
Before we has social safety nets, the local community could not or did not (depedning on the area) manage to keep families from starving to death or being split up among relatives and into poor houses and orphanages, children into forced labor at young ages, etc. It would be nice to think we could all stop paying taxes and that we would all give enough money to local church run poverty programs, but that is not going to happen. And even if it did, it would hardly be effiecient. For instance, in my rural area several churches run food banks. THere is little communication or coordination between them, which probably means that several families are getting food from more than one food bank while others are getting none. Governmental beaurocracy may have its downside, but at least there is some sort of “paper trail” to try and fairly distribute resources.
MattF:”Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
I think that (James 4:17, NASB) applies to everyone — individuals, corporations, governments, what have you. Sin is not only what we do that it is wrong, but what we don’t do that is right. I agree but you still miss the fact that if the government does the giving, it is theft, from one person who has and gives to one who doesn’t have. From Dr. Gary North’s book Inherit the earth:
A married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, sold a piece of property. They took some of the money aside, and gave the rest to the church. But they told the leaders that they had given all the proceeds of the sale to the church. Just before God judged them both with death for this sin of deception, Peter reminded Ananias: “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4). Peter’s point was clear: there is no required system of socialist or communist ownership in God’s administration of things. Shared property is voluntary. Shared property was a voluntary gift, not a moral requirement, let alone a legal requirement. Thus, one of the most popular arguments of “Christian” socialists, that the early church held property in common, is in fact an argument against State-required and State-enforced socialism.
Only in Jerusalem did the church adopt this policy of shared property, for only Jerusalem was threatened with God’s prophesied destruction. Yet a practice which was temporary and voluntary has been used by evil men to defend a permanent and involuntary system of theft by ballot box, modern socialism and the welfare State.
Ownership is a social function. Most people don’t understand this. Capitalism’s critics certainly don’t. When the critics think of private ownership, they think of a greedy, grasping, profit-seeking, tight-fisted owner of property who uses his property exclusively for his own personal self-advancement. They think of the capital- ist as Ebenezer Scrooge. This has been the traditional cartoon version of the capitalist in all socialist parties. The capitalist is seen as an exploiter. He is seen as someone whose plans must be thwarted by the community as a whole, acting politically through the State, in order that the community’s interests can be upheld.
This is a complete misunderstanding of private property. Individuals own property as a dual stewardship: first before God, and second for the community. Understand: I didn’t say that people hold property for the benefit of the State. The State is not the same as the community (though proponents of Big Government seldom mention this). People don’t hold property primarily to benefit the civil government, meaning that political and bureaucratic institu- tion which God has established to punish evildoers. Ownership in the Bible and also in a free market isn’t primarily a State function. I am arguing instead that ownership is a social function, and that men must divide up property according to the needs and demands of the community as a whole, if owners wish to be wise investors and receive the highest profits and benefits from their property. In short, the State is not the same as the community.
The community is a lot broader than the State: it is made up of families, churches, schools, businesses, and voluntary associations of all kinds. The officials of the State legally represent the community in Biblically limited ways: they offer protection of life and property (Exodus 22), trials by jury (Exodus 18; Remans 13:1-7), national defense (Judges), medical quarantine (Leviticus 13, 14), and public safety (Exodus 21:28-36).
Theft is an Assault on Civilization By Gary North Theft is not simply an assault on an individual. Theft
is an assault on civilization. It’s an assault on the very foundations of civilization.
Therefore, one of the most important functions of civil government is to restrict the ability of the thief to
tear down society in general. The protection of private property from theft and fraud and violence is at the very heart of civil government.
To the extent that the State in this century has squandered its resources on other kinds of goals besides protection of private property, protection of life and limb, to that extent the State has forfeited its claims to receive support from the public. When individuals do not honor the law of God by self-government, it becomes extremely expensive for society to protect itself against the loss of its assets. Billions of dollars must be spent in law enforcement, court systems, and all the other devices that defend us against theft. If men were self-governed by the fear of God, and also by their own sense of personal integrity, we would see a drastic reduction in theft and a rapid increase in economic growth and individual wealth. How do you keep a society from indulging in theft? The most important of all restraints is the fear of God. If men believe that God is a perfect Judge, and that He will condemn them through perfect punishment throughout eternity, they will be much more careful about indulging their sins and their lusts. So the first and most important restraint is the fear of God. Self-government under God is the primary means of restraint. Second, it is the responsibility of the family to teach basic principles of righteousness, so the father’s role in the early years as a disciplinarian and moral instructor (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) is extremely important. Third, the preaching of the churches against theft is basic to molding a righteous society. Two thousand years of such preaching made possible the wealth of Western civilization. Finally, of course, the civil government is the God-ordained earthly agent of punishment. The State is to be an agent of anti- theft, anti-coercion, and anti-fraud. What happens to society if men begin to vote for ownership of their neighbor’s property? In other words, what happens if men begin to steal from one another by means of the ballot box? What if they decide to “ vote themselves rich”
(political covetousness)? More to the point, what if’ they decide to “vote their richer neighbors poor” (political envy)? What restraint can then be imposed? If people believe that they can tax other citizens at a higher percentage of taxation than they are burdened with, they will also be tempted to give the State the authorization to confiscate the property of those citizens. Never forget, the extremely rich members of society always have a sufficient number of lawyers, accountants, and tax loop- holes to escape the highest levels of taxation. The people who
at firstare the primary victims of “tax reform” are members of the up- per middle class. These are the people who are the most innovative; they are the backbone of Western society. They work smarter than other people (though not necessarily harder). Socialism is designed to break this backbone. Ultimately, through mass inflation, everyone is pushed up into the highest income tax brackets, and the trap of ballot box theft is sprung on them personally. Surprise,Surprise! God will not be mocked. One way of restraining people in their lust to get a greater portion of their fellow citizens’ wealth is to have all tax rates apply equally to every citizen. This is sometimes called
a flat tax. In the Bible, it’s called the tithe.
Then, if people vote to increase the rate of taxation, it hurts them as much as it hurts their neighbors. Socialists and
Communists hate the idea of a flat tax. This is why Karl Marx included a highly graduated income tax (higher tax rates for rich people) as the second plank in his ten-part program to destroy capitalism. (Communist Manifesto, 1848, last section of Part II.) The Bible teaches that all laws are to apply equally to all members of society. The
Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons. This means that God does not play favorites. This
is emphasized over and over in the Bible as a principle of justice (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19; Acts 10:34). Laws must not be passed that discriminate against any one segment of the population, unless God’s law defines them as criminals.
MattF: “Yes. I get it. Your point is that the government is doing it wrong. On that we agree. It seems to me that most thinking people would agree that the government is doing it wrong.
I meant to get at a more fundamental question, though: Should the government be giving assistance to the poor at all?
”
No because government is political. What government, those that run it do, is use their authority to gain votes. Government and those that work for government are political, which is why the smaller the government (limited powers) the better off society is. Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve Government spending was less than 5% of GDP. Today it is over 20% and in the next few years it will reach 40%. Communist societies as well as socialist countries are generally poor because government consumes….key word….consumes to much of the available capital of a nation. Large government generally leads to unnecessary regulations which also stifle economic development. This is not a religious issue, it is an economic one. Show me one country that has moved to socialism or communism and has prospered. Argentina use to be the shining diamond of South America. It’s economy was 14th in the world for the first half of the 20th century. Abandoning the gold standard and the rise of the Perons led to the nations fall into third world status. As government benevolence grew the nation declined. Now tell me which of the “poor” are better off.
China on the other hand has adopted many “free market” aspects of capitalism. One is a low tax rate. In the 1980s few Chinese owned cars….very very few. In 2009 China will be the car sales capital of the world. Per capita income is rising and the nation will experience 8% growth this year. China learned that to be a great economic and military power the government had to get out of the way. The motto in China is “To be patriotic is to be rich.” The poor are rising out of their poverty and more than just a handful have become millionaires. Recently CNBC had a special on the rise of China. I can tell you that China’s rise from the ashes was not accomplished under a social welfare state.
kash: “Before we has social safety nets, the local community could not or did not (depedning on the area) manage to keep families from starving to death or being split up among relatives and into poor houses and orphanages, children into forced labor at young ages, etc.”
kash, no one starved to death in the latter half of the 20th century. You seem to think that government rescued everyone from poverty. It is too bad that ophanages were closed as many provided stable environment for children where the staff became like parents and the other kids were the brothers and sisters. Today we have single parents raising kids in crime ridden ghettos all made possible by the “Benevolence” of government.
Paul: I agree but you still miss the fact that if the government does the giving, it is theft, from one person who has and gives to one who doesn’t have.
Isn’t that what all taxation does? Government officials earn their pay through taxation; in a sense, they take from the people who have and keep a certain amount for themselves, transferring money from those who have it (the taxpayer) to those who don’t (themselves). Why does it qualify as theft if they also give a portion to those in need who are not government workers?
If government officials demanded a higher salary (and commensurately higher taxes), but paid off the “extra” they now receive to the poor, would they then be guilty of theft?
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): A married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, sold a piece of property. They took some of the money aside, and gave the rest to the church. But they told the leaders that they had given all the proceeds of the sale to the church. Just before God judged them both with death for this sin of deception, Peter reminded Ananias: “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4). Peter’s point was clear: there is no required system of socialist or communist ownership in God’s administration of things.
I don’t see that at all. I see Peter condemning these two for telling a lie, plain and simple. He doesn’t attempt to outline how the social order ought to be, or how possession ought to work — merely that they had perfect circumstances for telling the truth but conspired to lie instead. How does Dr. North make the leap from “Peter detailing why judgment is coming down (because of a lie)” to “Peter describing God’s ideal system of ownership (incidental to the judgment)”?
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): Shared property is voluntary.
It still can be. I’m far from advocating that all distribution should be handled by the state; there has to be some room for personal charity. (Doesn’t it make personal charity more meaningful if one gives out of resources left over after “compulsory giving” has been extracted? If one refuses to think he has “done his part” simply because a small percentage of his taxes have been redistributed to the needy?)
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): Shared property was a voluntary gift, not a moral requirement, let alone a legal requirement.
In this particular instance, yes. But this incident does not imply that legal requirements to give are wrong.
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): Thus, one of the most popular arguments of “Christian” socialists, that the early church held property in common, is in fact an argument against State-required and State-enforced socialism.
That seems a rather extraordinary leap. The context is neither about social order nor the virtue (or lack thereof) of different concepts of ownership, but rather about God’s judgment of hypocrisy and deceit. It seems a bit like claiming that God’s condemnation of King David and Bathsheba’s indiscretion is meant to show God’s position on whether or not women should bathe. Maybe Dr. North finds a deeper basis for making this connection, but I don’t see that it’s there simply because he says it’s there.
How does Dr. North justify Israel’s compulsory redistribution of a portion of personal wealth under Mosaic law?
(I think it necessary to mention that I advocate neither total capitalism nor total socialism. I also admit personal misgivings about his choice of punctuation there; it could be taken to mean that he thinks his political opponents are not real Christians.)
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): Only in Jerusalem did the church adopt this policy of shared property, for only Jerusalem was threatened with God’s prophesied destruction.
Why did that make it okay for the people living in Jerusalem? I’m not sure I follow.
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): When the critics think of private ownership, they think of a greedy, grasping, profit-seeking, tight-fisted owner of property who uses his property exclusively for his own personal self-advancement.
Well, first of all, I have nothing against private ownership. Second, I don’t subscribe to this caricature; I merely note that the poor seem to be doing better with welfare than when it was up to individuals to determine how much to help out. (Note that this does not even imply that a true socialist order would be a good thing; it may be that there is a necessary balance between compulsory giving and private ownership.)
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): The State is not the same as the community
Well, there’s a no-brainer. But surely, the State is part of the community — especially when it’s a government “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people”, right?
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): People don’t hold property primarily to benefit the civil government,
I don’t hold that they do. But they do in part, don’t they [Romans 13:6-7]?
Paul (quoting Gary North’s book): The officials of the State legally represent the community in Biblically limited ways: they offer protection of life and property (Exodus 22), trials by jury (Exodus 18; Remans 13:1-7), national defense (Judges), medical quarantine (Leviticus 13, 14), and public safety (Exodus 21:28-36).
But there’s also Biblical precedent for government collecting a portion of people’s income and giving it to the needy [Numbers 18; Deuteronomy chapters 12, 14, and 26]. Why doesn’t this make Dr. North’s list of government functions?
“kash, no one starved to death in the latter half of the 20th century.” Because we had social safety nets, and have had them since the 30s, expanded under Johnson’s War on Poverty. People DID starve to death or die of malnutrition related diseases much more commonly pre-1940s. And most orphanages were over crowded and under funded.
kash: “People DID starve to death or die of malnutrition related diseases much more commonly pre-1940s. And most orphanages were over crowded and under funded.”
Yes and many died of polio, typhoid fever, and many other diseases. It was the private sector that lifted the standard of living not the government. Modern agriculture made farming and raising animals for human consumption more efficient thus driving down the price and abundance of food. Governments role was limited to insuring quality and a level playing field so that small businesses could compete with the big business. As for you “safety nets”, what started out as a safety net unfortunately turned into a counch for those with no insentive to make their lives better. Government is notorious for misallocating funds and inefficiency. Regulations are written for the one size fits all and are sometimes so loosly inforced that fraud becomes a huge problem (just do a web search on Medicare fraud.) You continue to live in an idealistic world that completely ignores reality. Like most liberals, you feed off the “good intentions” rather than looking at the results of government policies. I will agree that at the turn of the last century there were many problems regarding “the big money trust”, child labor, pollution, horrible working conditions, institutionalized racism, etc. that government was able to correct; but since the first 25 years of that century we have gone to the other extreme.
Once again I will tell you that within the next 2 to 3 years you will see the impact of government largess and how the statists have destroyed this once great nation. Our fiat currency just tagged 76.01, a critical support level for the USDX. Gold has hit a high of $1025. THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE US, and I have prayed that this would not happen. As I have said I pray I am wrong as I do not want to see the calamity brought upon the US as the dollar continues its slide into oblivion. Of course, I am absolutely sure that you will blame the evil capitalist for our debaucle, just as politicians (in other countries) in the past have done. Hitler blamed foreigners and the Jews. Castro blames the US and its embargo. Stalin blamed all the capitalists and certain groups. Peron did the same in Argentina, which was once the most advanced country of South America with a very high standard of living. Today Argentina is a third world nation. The US is headed in the same direction. But like all liberals you will continue to believe that government will solve the problems.
As the US dollar slides lower and inflation morphs into hyperinflation remember that it was caused by over $90,000,000,000,000 of debt and unfunded liabilities. A nation with a debt 450% of its GDP cannot expect its currency to hold up even if has been established as the world’s reserve. AS king dollar dies there will be much human suffering, and the very poor and elderly that you so lovingly like to put in the arms of government will suffer the most. The banksters…..those that profited in the billions….will walk away fabulously wealthy while they are the ones that brought on the crisis. THIS IS WHO YOU SUPPORT. This is why I call you “a useful idiot.” You support and serve the very people that will impoverish you, your family, your church, and your neighbors and friends. You seem to be more loyal to your ideology than to the people and nation say “you love.”
I love my country and have “real” compassion on the plight of the poor. My loyalty is not to the Republican or Democrat party as I see both as opposite sides of the same coin. They give the impression of being advasaries while in truth both are run by the statists. My prayer for you is that when it all unravels as it currently is, the scales will fall from your eyes and the eyes of all Americans. Until then I am sure these debates will continue along the theme of you defending the “liberal / socialist / statist” left and my demanding that we return to freedom and individual responsiblity.
Just a final thought. I believe that with freedom comes responsibility. Children are told what to do and when to do it, because they are not responsible for taking care of themselves. As parents we know that at some point the child must grow up and learn to take care of themselves. Once they are in their later teens or early 20s we expect them to make their own decisions and thus reap the rewards of good decisions or pay the consequences of poor ones. If we continue to “take care” of them they never grow up and never learn from their mistakes. Instead of raising grateful, honest, hard working individuals; we are more likely to raise self-centered, lazy, irresponsible people. Freedom = responsibility which = reaping what we sow. Slavery puts responsibility in the hands of a higher authority.
kash: ‘And most orphanages were over crowded and under funded.”
I would take underfunded and overcrowded any day over the ghetto, crime infested, neighborhoods and schools made possible by our BENEVOLENT government’s public housing projects. Single mother welfare queens, living with a array of boyfriends father numerous children, I am sure provided the love and guidance missing in the orphanages of the early part of the 20th century.
Paul (quoting Gary North): The protection of private property from theft and fraud and violence is at the very heart of civil government.
Sure. But I still haven’t seen a good reason to call welfare “theft”. If any act that takes money from some people and gives it to others is “theft”, why isn’t all taxation “theft”? Why aren’t God’s orders to give gatherings from the tithe to the poor “theft”? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any good reason for Dr. North to call welfare “theft” except as an attempt to communicate his strong emotions on the matter. If we expect his accusation that welfare is theft to carry weight, we need something that will exclude taxation and the tithe but include legitimate protection of private property.
If we call theft “the illegal acquisition of money, goods, or services”, for example, then taxes, the tithe, and welfare don’t count as theft — but it’s still something the government should try to prevent. (That’s close to the definition given by the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law: “a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent”; the same resource gives “criminal” as “relating to, involving, or being a crime”, and “crime” as “conduct that is prohibited and has a specific punishment prescribed by public law”.)
Is there a good reason why this definition should not apply? What definition can we use that gives taxation and the tithe license to exist, but not welfare?
Paul (quoting Gary North): When individuals do not honor the law of God by self-government, it becomes extremely expensive for society to protect itself against the loss of its assets.
Well, yeah. That’s true no matter what government model you’re talking about. The best way to keep order is if people self-govern, and the best way to be self-governed is a healthy fear of God. If no one is self-governed, you don’t even have a society.
Paul (quoting Gary North): Second, it is the responsibility of the family to teach basic principles of righteousness,
Absolutely. I’d refrain from saying that it is solely the family’s responsibility, though; I think there’s a sense in which, for example, one’s involvement in Christian fellowship also plays a role. In general, even though certain responsibilities are outlined for certain specific groups and indivduals, I think it would be a mistake — unless it’s specifically spelled out — to say that those responsibilities can only be assumed by those roles, which seems to be one of Dr. North’s unspoken assumptions.
Paul (quoting Gary North): Third, the preaching of the churches against theft is basic to molding a righteous society. Two thousand years of such preaching made possible the wealth of Western civilization.
How’s that? First of all, where is the information that shows a correlation between churches preaching against theft in a society and the wealth of that society? If you’re going to assert a causal link, you need to show that some kind of definitive correlation exists at a minimum. Second, while I’m certainly for churches preaching against theft, how — other than intuition — does one establish that this practice is basic to the moral behavior of society?
Paul (quoting Gary North): Finally, of course, the civil government is the God-ordained earthly agent of punishment.
Well, yeah. I’d even argue that that’s Scriptural (see Romans 13, for example).
Paul (quoting Gary North): In other words, what happens if men begin to steal from one another by means of the ballot box?
Again with the emotionally-laden and poorly-defined terms. The poor aren’t the only ones who vote for systems like welfare, nor are they the only ones to benefit from a system like welfare. We still haven’t established when government is “stealing” and when it’s not, since any tax moves money from person to person.
Paul (quoting Gary North): What if they decide to “ vote themselves rich” (political covetousness)?
How is this different from, say, entering a business coalition to extend monetary influence? Or is that wrong, too?
Paul (quoting Gary North): More to the point, what if’ they decide to “vote their richer neighbors poor” (political envy)?
I agree that that’s a bad motivation for supporting systems like welfare — but let’s flip it around: What if they decide to support the poor by voting to use tax money for that purpose? The motivations for welfare support are quite varied, and not all of them are nefarious.
Paul (quoting Gary North): If people believe that they can tax other citizens at a higher percentage of taxation than they are burdened with, they will also be tempted to give the State the authorization to confiscate the property of those citizens.
Shouldn’t the state have the right to sieze property if one refuses to pay taxes?
Shouldn’t different income levels be taxed at a different percentage? Necessities cost a certain amount no matter how much you make, which would tend to show that simple percentage-level taxation (a flat tax) punishes the poor. Moreover, the wealthy also benefit more from taxes, and not in a strictly proportional fashion. Who benefits more from a good interstate system — someone with a car, or someone without? Who benefits more from a good educational system — someone who starts an engineering consultation firm, or someone who works as a part-time clerk? Who has more stuff protected by a good military and good law enforcement? (Consider how insurance costs for homes or cars go up with the cost of the thing insured; it’s not strictly proportional.) Who benefits more from a good energy policy? Finally, even taking into account that the rich can well afford to toss a few extra pennies at the poor, we don’t want the rich to own everything. That would leave the poor with no stake in the status quo, and every reason to uproot the system in place. You might expect an intelligent rich person to want some automatic redistribution of wealth in the system just to keep the system in place, since the poor will always vastly outnumber the rich. (Call it insurance spending to preserve one’s wealth in the current system if you like.)
Paul (quoting Gary North): One way of restraining people in their lust to get a greater portion of their fellow citizens’ wealth is to have all tax rates apply equally to every citizen. This is sometimes called a flat tax. In the Bible, it’s called the tithe.
Dr. North conveniently forgets that it’s not the same tax rate for everyone, since the poor get proceeds from the tithe handed back. He also forgets that there was (in addition) a tithe on increase, not just on income, so those who made a bigger profit had to pay a larger fraction of their total earnings. Sounds like we’re approaching a graduated tax plan to me. There were also some mandatory payments that were the same regardless of income level (e.g., Exodus 30:15).
Paul (quoting Gary North): Socialists and Communists hate the idea of a flat tax.
Okay. But let me tell you why I dislike a flat tax.
All a flat tax will do, assuming revenues aren’t going to be altered at all, is redistribute who pays what. The poor would have to be paying as well, which punishes them disproportionately, as I’ve mentioned. There will be those poor enough that they can’t pay what they owe. If we use the flat tax to reduce what the rich pay (a proportional amount would be less than the graduated amount they pay now), there’s only one group left to pick up the slack: the middle class. To summarize, if we have a flat tax, taxes go down for the rich (they pay a disproportionately large fraction of their income compared to other income groups), the poor still can’t pay, and the middle class make up the difference.
You want to talk about a system that looks like theft? We’re talking about a government — which is already in the palm of big business — being paid for to an even greater extent by people who don’t own big business. That doesn’t seem like a good thing, especially for a government that claims to be representative of the populace.
Paul (quoting Gary North): The Bible teaches that all laws are to apply equally to all members of society.
Ha! No.
Has this guy ever even looked at Old Testament law? This was a system erected by God Himself, and it’s riddled with stratification — how one treats women who break certain laws, how one treats slaves, how one treats Gentiles, how one treats visitors, and even how one treats the poor (e.g., Exodus 22:25). Would you like examples? It would be a long post all by itself.
Paul (quoting Gary North): The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons. This means that God does not play favorites.
Right. But admonitions to care for the poor don’t imply that God likes the poor better, do they? If God doesn’t play favorites, how does that even imply that it’s wrong to treat different income levels different economically? (Even God is shown to be Someone who treats different economic levels differently, e.g., Proverbs 15:25.)
Mike: No because government is political. What government, those that run it do, is use their authority to gain votes.
Let me make sure I understand. Can one summarize your argument by saying, “Government is corruptable, so it shouldn’t be giving to the poor, and it shouldn’t command a large portion of the GDP”?
Individuals are corruptable, too. Corruptability alone, then, can’t be a reason for not giving, or a reason for not having a large portion of the GDP (as individuals did originally). Or am I misunderstanding?
Mike: Show me one country that has moved to socialism or communism and has prospered.
Well, as I mentioned, I don’t advocate total socialism; I also don’t advocate total communism. But there are countries that are more socialist than the United States that seem to be doing pretty well — Sweden, for example, is in the top 20 of purchasing power parity per capita according to the International Monetary Fund and the CIA World Factbook (and in the top 10 according to World Bank), is much more socialist than the U.S., and, we might also note (in a completely unrelated vein), has a much lower abortion rate. Or Norway, which is doing better than the United States according to all three references, and is much more socialist than the United States; they are said to have a “cradle-to-grave welfare state”, and they’re profiting while the U.S. is crashing and burning.
Obviously, welfare is not a prescription for economic disaster.
MattF: “But I still haven’t seen a good reason to call welfare “theft”. If any act that takes money from some people and gives it to others is “theft”, why isn’t all taxation “theft”? Why aren’t God’s orders to give gatherings from the tithe to the poor “theft”? Maybe I’m missing something……”
Most definitely you are missing something. The tithe is to be given from the heart and is 10% if one wants to be legalistic. I do not recall where in the Bible God orders the Priests to collect the tithe at the point of a spear.
Taxation is necessary and like all things that go to excess, becomes harmful. A glass of wine at dinner is not sin a bottle is. Eating a meal is not sin but gluttony is. Attaining wealth and stuff is not sin, but loving that wealth more than God is. So what is excessive taxation? When the income tax was started it maximum rate was 10% and that was only paid by the wealthiest of people and corporations. I have a copy of a 1916 “complex” tax form and it is 2 pages. Within 15 years the highest marginal rate was 25%. In 1930, Hoover raised it to 60%. FDR in the mid 30s raised it to 79% and by WW II it was a whopping 94%. JFK dropped the top marginal rate to 70%. In the process of raising taxes came the lobbyist representing the wealthiest of individuals. Their sole purpose was to get legislation for tax breaks, subsidies, and government contracts. Over time Wall Street began to own Washington and the will of the people became meaningless. Of course the worst of all taxes, which impacts the poor, the middleclass, the small businesses, and the elderly is the tax of inflation. When the US dollar loses value, the savers and workers of a society are robbed through the hidden tax of inflation. Of course the debtor sees his debt reduced and since government is the biggest debtor on the planet and is responsible for the money supply, what the heck….so what if the people suffer….so what if the economy goes in the tank….so what if businesses close and people lose their homes…so what…government relieves itself of its debt burden and that is all that counts….the state is all their is.
Now does not all this sound Biblical. Don’t you think God will bless a nation that robs its people while enslaving the masses, while rewarding the rich and powerful. Of course He will……only Satan would reward such a nation….especially one that has murdered 50 million innocent unborn babies.
Now here is a story that should give you and kash comfort. So reassuring that our government will be able to run Health care efficiently just as they did Cash for Clunkers. I am sure $40 million were cashed.
Let’s see how Washington runs banks and Motors.
Article: Social Security Sent More than $40 Million in Checks to Dead People, Inspector General Finds
Thursday, September 17, 2009
By Karen Schuberg
(CNSNews.com) – The Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued benefit checks totaling $40.3 million to an estimated 6,100 beneficiaries for months – and in some cases for decades — after receiving notification of their deaths, according to a June audit report from the agency’s Office of Inspector General.
Approximately 1,760 of the 6,100 listed as deceased actually were dead, the government auditor estimated. The rest were alive, but had been wrongly listed as deceased.
During a sample audit in 2008, the inspector general uncovered 228 cases where beneficiaries had been receiving payments from SSA when they were already listed as dead. Of those, 88 were verified to have died. Another 140 were found to still be alive.
“SSA improperly paid these 88 deceased beneficiaries approximately $2.0 million,” the OIG report noted.
The remainder were alive, but had been reported as deceased in the federal agency’s Numident master file, a database of Social Security information tied to person’s Social Security number.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54174
So we have massive medicare fraud and Social Security is a mess with benefits to be cut over the next 2 years to seniors. The government further cheats Social Security recipients by fudging the inflation numbers to reduce Cost of Living Adjustments. Now the government is going to inflate to the point where Social Security recipients will get their money but they won’t be able to buy much with it. All this is fine and dandy in your and kash’s eyes. You are both such wonderful Compasionate Christians.
Mike: Both Kash and MattF have a mindset of a humanist.
Mike: The tithe is to be given from the heart and is 10% if one wants to be legalistic.
Cite?
I understand that the model of giving in the New Testament is much different from the model of the Old, and understandably so: the Old Testament was laying the foundation of a society. But I don’t seem to recollect any passages that said that, for the Israelites, the tithe was optional and depended on one’s own convictions and generosity.
I don’t mean to say that we Christians ought to tithe 10%; frankly, I think the New Testament model is much more radical. But the original claim was that God never ordered that tax money be used to redistribute wealth, and it seems to me (based on the tithe) that this claim is false.
Mike: I do not recall where in the Bible God orders the Priests to collect the tithe at the point of a spear.
Not in those words, no. But God orders it to be done, and that ought to be that, right? Unless you can point to exceptions based on conviction, I’d be prone to think it’s like any other law that God laid down for the people of Israel.
Does the Old Testament specify any taxation that is to be collected “at the point of a spear”?
Mike: Taxation is necessary and like all things that go to excess, becomes harmful.
I think we can agree on that. I’m not trying to establish whether or not the current method the government uses in welfare is the right one; we both know it isn’t. I’m trying to establish whether or not the practice is right in principle, since I seem to be getting indications that you would like to do away with it in any form on moral grounds.
While we’re at it, care to address why poverty levels seem to go down with welfare payments? Correlation seems to be there, but if causation is missing, what evidence do you have to show that causation does not exist? Or do you maintain that causation does not matter, since dropping poverty levels do not concern us?
Do you have numbers? Not just to show how terrible the mismanagement has been — that’s irrelevant to what I’m trying to drive at, since we both know it’s been wasteful — but to show that the attempts to find causation are misguided?
Mike: All this is fine and dandy in your and kash’s eyes.
You’re not listening. Stop erecting strawman opponents. “All this” is not “fine and dandy”. I’ve said from the very beginning that the way government is doing it is flawed. What I’m trying to get at is whether or not we should be doing this at all.
Based on poverty levels here in the States and elsewhere, it seems like welfare payments do some good. If that’s the case, we need to fix it. If, on the other hand, these perceived benefits are illusory — and you’ve given me nothing but rhetoric and misdirection into how badly mismanaged it’s been to assert that it is — then we ought to stop altogether.
Can you handle the truth? What the statist have done to you, your children, your grandchildren, the nation. kash, do you still support the very people that will be ruin to all?
There is a headline that has been all over the media ever since September 2008: “Bank Bailout Will Soak Taxpayers.” As obviously true as this headline appears to be, it is in fact, dangerously misleading. Indeed, as we will cover in this article, the idea that taxes will pay for the bailout is ludicrous, an insult to both your intelligence – and your net worth.
If the video above doesn’t load, it can also be seen here
Instead, the real source of the bailout monies will not be the taxes you pay, but the value of your savings. The value of your checking account, the value of your IRA or Keogh, and the value of all your investments are the true source of payment for Wall Street’s reckless mistakes. When we combine the bailout with the trouble the US was already in, the result could be a 95% reduction in value for all of our savings, retirement and otherwise, as we will illustrate step by step in this article. http://danielamerman.com/Video/BBL1.htm
MattF: Or do you maintain that causation does not matter, since dropping poverty levels do not concern us?
Dropping poverty levels (how is that defined?) is not good if the able-bodied and minded poor people are not the root cause. Giving poor people stolen money and making them rich is not good…for one thing it will only last as long as the handouts do – generally. Teaching poor people to increase productivity, increase resilience, etc – that would be good. If they have to revert to a simpler life, good for them. –The modern lifestyle is rather expensive/excessive. Just by living simpler I can save significant amounts of money even with a low paying job. Over the years I could easily work my way out of poverty. There is so much waste in the U.S.! …people could rise up from the crumbs that fall through the cracks in the floor. They aren’t taught how. Our education system doesn’t teach much about living simpler, saving money, and using money wisely – it doesn’t teach the poor how to rise up.
MattF: Based on poverty levels here in the States and elsewhere, it seems like welfare payments do some good.
Yes, “based on poverty levels” – but what does that mean? Why don’t you establish that before calling anything good? Are these people really better off, or are they in an inflated position (a bubble easily burst)?
Naturally, handing people money will change their circumstances (decrease poverty numbers), but that won’t change their lifestyles for the better – which is more often what needs to change. They should live according to their means. I’ve seen plenty of “poor people” with TV sets that are bigger than their family.
Also, you keep saying that the Bible supports taxation, etc – but this isn’t a case for the poor-person tax in the U.S. If I’m not mistaken, the Biblical tithe to relieve poor people was 3.33% (a tithe once every three years). No citations, but they also didn’t charge interest to their fellow Hebrew – and they forgave debt periodically. That stands in stark contrast to circumstances in the U.S. – so I imagine it would be difficult to honestly use the Bible to make a case in favor of current practices.
You seem to be arguing “if this money helps poor people, then it’s ok for it to be forcibly collected” – but that ignores fairness (for those “better off” or who worked harder) and the importance of self-reliance (for the poor). “Helping the poor” (handing money out to less fortunate people) isn’t our only objective…and if it is then we’re doomed to failure.
MattF: I’m not trying to establish whether or not the current method the government uses in welfare is the right one; we both know it isn’t. I’m trying to establish whether or not the practice is right in principle, since I seem to be getting indications that you would like to do away with it in any form on moral grounds.
Mike answered that with this: “Taxation is necessary and like all things that go to excess, becomes harmful. A glass of wine at dinner is not sin a bottle is. Eating a meal is not sin but gluttony is. Attaining wealth and stuff is not sin, but loving that wealth more than God is.”
Some correction (tax for the poor) in an unfair world we would expect to be a good and fair thing – Israelites used a 3.33% tax to help the poor (forgave debt, didn’t charge interest, etc). We are not anywhere near that. Now the creation of a welfare dependent class is actually possible (we passed fair and we’re back into unfair). Why are you speaking about the current way of things without condemning it? Really, you seem to speak in favor of it – and even extending the redistribution of wealth (pro-Liberal).
b baggins: Dropping poverty levels (how is that defined?)
The idea of a “poverty level” is a well-known economic concept. Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary, but if you pick an income definition and stick with it (adjusting for currency fluctuations), it can provide useful measurements of different years or different sectors.
b baggins: Giving poor people stolen money and making them rich is not good…for one thing it will only last as long as the handouts do – generally.
Again with the emotionally-laden words. No one has shown what makes this stealing. The only attempt to show why this is stealing failed to leave room for legitimate taxation.
And the fact that it will only last as long as the handouts is patently obvious. In the meantime, though, people down on their luck have a better chance to afford food, heat, and shelter. Even if the handouts don’t last forever, isn’t it a good thing to reduce suffering while we still have the ability?
b baggins: Teaching poor people to increase productivity, increase resilience, etc – that would be good.
Obviously. Why assume that these goals are mutually exclusive? The numbers seem to indicate that with a safety net, more people do increase their productivity and increase their resilience — more people leave poverty behind.
b baggins: If they have to revert to a simpler life, good for them.
Have you ever actually looked at the numbers concerning how adequate welfare generally is to cover necessities?
It’s not. I recommend Rethinking Social Policy, which showed that on average among welfare recipients, government aid only covers about 58% of their income. The rest comes from well-wishers, live-in significant others, jobs, and illegal activity. Technically, this extra income should have been reported, which would have caused a commensurate reduction in benefits… but that would have left them too little to live on. These people were not living excessively. Available money went to rent and utilities (28%), food (26%), clothing, laundry, furniture, transportation, appliances, household supplies, and occasional luxuries. Only 22% had a car; 25% had no phone; most lived in apartments with leaky roofs, cockroaches, peeling plaster, and dodgy heat and hot water; and most could not afford fresh fruit or vegetables.
b baggins: people could rise up from the crumbs that fall through the cracks in the floor. They aren’t taught how. Our education system doesn’t teach much about living simpler, saving money, and using money wisely – it doesn’t teach the poor how to rise up.
Are we advised to refrain from helping the poor on the basis that they need to learn how to rise up from poverty themselves?
“Are there no prisons? … And the Union workhouses? … Are they still in operation? … The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then? … I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,… I’m very glad to hear it.”
When Dickens wrote those words, he expected that the audience would be appalled at the lack of compassion. Imagine! This man expected that the poor would lift themselves up by their own bootstraps, refusing to show even a hint of sympathy or offer any scintilla of assistance! Strangely, there are Christians who seem to have come full-circle in the United States, who act like this is an appropriate mindset.
Capitalists themselves don’t necessarily behave like Ebenezer Scrooge; there are some awfully generous capitalists out there. But this mindset seems to fit Scrooge to a T.
b baggins: Yes, “based on poverty levels” – but what does that mean? Why don’t you establish that before calling anything good?
Because it’s a well-established economic measure, and I assumed that people would know what it meant and why it is a useful metric. It’s based on the income of the poorest fifth of the population in 1964, and is adjusted for currency fluctuations.
b baggins: Are these people really better off, or are they in an inflated position (a bubble easily burst)?
At the moment, they possess more buying power, as represented by their reported income — simply, more ability to buy food and heat. No one can predict the future, of course, but as it stands, so far, they’ve been better off with welfare than without.
b baggins: That stands in stark contrast to circumstances in the U.S. – so I imagine it would be difficult to honestly use the Bible to make a case in favor of current practices.
You misunderstand my point. I don’t mean to say that U.S. taxation schemes are identical to those of ancient Israel (though certain interesting parallels can be drawn). I mean to show that the idea that God never ordered tax revenues to be used to support of the poor is completely wrong.
b baggins: You seem to be arguing “if this money helps poor people, then it’s ok for it to be forcibly collected” – but that ignores fairness (for those “better off” or who worked harder) and the importance of self-reliance (for the poor).
It’s not the case in our society that those who work harder get more money. For example, Charlie Sheen is currently the highest-paid TV actor. Do you honestly think he’s the hardest-working?
That said, the rich have a greater obligation to society. Consider the words of Christ (Luke 12:48b, NASB): From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
As far as the importance of self-reliance goes, I remind you that welfare is not enough for most who receive it to live on, and that God’s followers are not encouraged to refrain from helping the poor in the name of teaching them self-reliance.
b baggins: “Helping the poor” (handing money out to less fortunate people) isn’t our only objective…and if it is then we’re doomed to failure.
Who said it was our only objective?
b baggins: Some correction (tax for the poor) in an unfair world we would expect to be a good and fair thing – Israelites used a 3.33% tax to help the poor (forgave debt, didn’t charge interest, etc). We are not anywhere near that.
No. But as I’ve mentioned countless times before, the way we have it is broken and flawed. But some here seem to be saying that we ought to refrain from any kind of governmental assistance to the poor at all. I’m exploring why that is, because if I’m wrong about this, reform is not the right course of action; removal is.
b baggins: Why are you speaking about the current way of things without condemning it?
You’re not listening. BROKEN AND FLAWED.
I’ve been saying that from the beginning. If you can’t hear me condemning the way things currently are, I can’t force you to read for comprehension.
b baggins: Really, you seem to speak in favor of it – and even extending the redistribution of wealth (pro-Liberal).
Figuring out how it should be done is usually a step taken after deciding whether it should be done. Let’s talk about the practice first, then talk about appropriate levels if the behavior itself is appropriate.
b baggins: I agree (post 52) , what I was trying to explain to MattF was God ordained authority for governing authorities (the structure for society). Politics is the means of establishing and controlling civil government. It is one of the great heresies of our era that most people believe that civil government is “government,” and that other lawful, God-ordained governments are something less than government. It is this monopolizing of the concept of government by the state that is at the heart of the loss of liberty in our day.
Conservative sociologist and historian Robert Nisbet has written in his classic book, The Quest for Community (1952), that “The argument of this book is that the single most decisive influence upon Western social organization has been the rise and development of the centralized territorial State.” He goes on to say, ‘Unlike either kinship or capitalism, the State has become, in the contemporary world, the supreme allegiance of men and, in most recent times, the greatest refuge from the insecurities of and frustrations of other spheres of life. . . . The State has risen as the dominant institutional force in our society and the most evocative symbol of cultural unity and purpose.” He is correct when he says that this modern faith in the State as the supreme manifestation of man’s unity, purpose, and power “makes control of the State the greatest single goal, or prize, in modem struggles for power over people.” It is this struggle for control over the state that is the equivalent of medieval man’s quest for salvation. (when I mention the state, I’m talking about the civil government) Society is far more than the state; it is a complex of lawful institutions-families, churches, businesses, and many voluntary associations and memberships. A denial of the distinction between society and state is, Nisbet argues, the first step toward totalitarianism. Now when we look at Romans 13 again a little closer :
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. Well I see first it say’s governing authorities, that means there is a hierarchy, a chain of command (authority structure) not just one.Let’s read on:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
This means that the civil government from federal to the local magistrate are accountable to God to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
This also shows the authority structure that God has ordained for society to function properly. Notice how it say’s to whom (some) taxes are due (civil government). The rest apply to the other facet’s of soceity, like the church,institutions-families
businesses, and many voluntary associations and memberships.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.”
Alexander Fraser Tyler, “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”
It seems that tax dollars should go to fund the government, not the people.
Speaking of emotionally laden words – MattF is connecting poverty level with suffering, but hasn’t shown the connection (poverty just means having less than other people). Bumping people out of poverty (having less) with redistributed wealth is not a sustainable solution, nor is the practice commanded by God. As individual believers we are instructed to help those who are suffering. This isn’t forced charity (as it is when government intervenes). God does not instruct us to force other people to give charity, just as He does not instruct us to force unbelievers to believe. Right?
MattF: “It’s not the case in our society that those who work harder get more money. For example, Charlie Sheen is currently the highest-paid TV actor. Do you honestly think he’s the hardest-working?”
The question then is “who should decide what a man’s labor is worth?” Should there be an arbiter of that decision or should the market place decide. I would rather the market place since it is the collective wisdom of millions of people acting in their own self interest as opposed to a few powerful individuals acting in their own self interst.
MattF:
”
That said, the rich have a greater obligation to society. Consider the words of Christ (Luke 12:48b, NASB): From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”
This quote is much more than just about wealth. It is about the gifts given to you by God and how, as a Believer, you use the gifts. But again I ask, ” Who is to decide how much any one individual should give or in the case of government, how much should be taken. God is always concerned with the heart of His people. He expects His people to be generous and compassionate. Compassion is not making an individual on a “handout”, compassion is teaching the individual to reach his maximum potential in all areas of life. The welfare state has been the most destructive influence on the family ever imposed on the American people. Not slavery prior to 1865 or Jim Crow prior to the voting rights act and modern civil rights movement did as much damage to minorities.
MattF:”As far as the importance of self-reliance goes, I remind you that welfare is not enough for most who receive it to live on, and that God’s followers are not encouraged to refrain from helping the poor in the name of teaching them self-reliance.
b baggins: “Helping the poor” (handing money out to less fortunate people) isn’t our only objective…and if it is then we’re doomed to failure.
Who said it was our only objective?”
So why have the statists in the Democrat party fought tooth and nail against School vouchers? Education is part of the key to getting out of poverty yet the Liberal left seems to support the teacher’s unions over what is best for children.
MattF:” But as I’ve mentioned countless times before, the way we have it is broken and flawed.
But some here seem to be saying that we ought to refrain from any kind of governmental assistance to the poor at all. I’m exploring why that is, because if I’m wrong about this, reform is not the right course of action; removal is.”
You don’t know the half of it. I am all in favor of programs that educate people and teach them marketable skills. All government does is give the individual just enough to survive but never enough to progress. Then once a person begins to progress the government comes in to deny him / her the fruits of their labor through the graduated income tax. A tax system which benefits the wealthy few with the means of influencing government and punishes competition through regulations and taxation. Then there is the “little issue of INFLATION.” If you want to see the greatest obsticle out of poverty and the leading cause of a declining standard of living look no further than INFLATION, the loss of value of the US dollar which is caused by government. Of course this is an issue which almost no one on this message board understands. Instead of trying to explain it, I will just ask a few question:
1. Would you rather earn $1.25 minimum wage of the 60s or today’s minimum wage of $7.25? 2. If you were a landlord would rather rent a house out at $70 per month of the 60s or at $700 per month? 3. Is the price of gasoline higher today than it was in 1960 (25 cents per gallon) or 2009 at $2.50?
4. What about the price of bread when it was 15 cents per loaf in the early 60 or today at $1.25?
I await your answers.
b baggins, well put in post # 55. America has long been the land of opportunity. I have given numerous examples of people that came from other countries with nothing but the shirts on their backs and little or no ability to speak the language and within a few years established businesses and the first generation of these new Americans went on to college and fantastic careers. Yet we also know that in more than just a few isolated cases; native born Americans living on the dole, that become generational welfare recipients. Many of us have seen in a booming economy, individuals quite capable of working, receiving food stamps and other forms of government assistence. The Bible has as much to say about the lazy as it does the poor. Staying out of poverty in America basically required 3 things: 1. Finish high school and preferably go on to learn a marketable skill.
2. Don’t make a baby before you are married to a responsible person.
3. Do not break the law and wind up with a criminal record.
If you look at most people living in poverty today you will find that they have violated at least one of the above if not all three.
Unfortunately, the economic conditions are changing and soon more and more people will find themselves impoverishes as the system (read: US dollar) implodes and takes everyone, except “the select few at the very top” and those that prepare by exiting the USD, with it. Stay tuned.
Paul: It is one of the great heresies of our era that most people believe that civil government is “government,” and that other lawful, God-ordained governments are something less than government.
I believe that governments, regardless of form, are put in place by God (Romans 13).
That said, though, representational governments (for example) have the ability to avoid certain kinds of evil, and we ought to advocate that, I would think. Of course, it’s entirely possible that some new evils are dragged in. It’s a complex issue.
Paul: This also shows the authority structure that God has ordained for society to function properly. Notice how it say’s to whom (some) taxes are due (civil government). The rest apply to the other facet’s of soceity, like the church,institutions-families businesses, and many voluntary associations and memberships.
I’m not so sure. The context is talking about governments, and does not mention the church, voluntary associations, and so forth. On what basis do you make the claim that this is what Paul was talking about here?
b baggins: Speaking of emotionally laden words – MattF is connecting poverty level with suffering, but hasn’t shown the connection (poverty just means having less than other people).
Fair dinkum.
The poor I referenced from Rethinking Social Policy were, in the main, residing in housing where heat could not be relied on, and where pest infestation was common; and they could not afford fresh fruit and vegetables, dietary staples. This was even with governmental assistance.
Now, the degree of this suffering may not be the same as elsewhere; there are places where people lack anything we’d call housing at all, and may not be able to eat daily (never mind having their nutritional needs met). But the fact of the matter is that there is some measure of suffering going on here, even if it’s not to some arbitrary degree.
b baggins: Bumping people out of poverty (having less) with redistributed wealth is not a sustainable solution, nor is the practice commanded by God.
Then whence the tithe? And on what basis do you claim that it is not sustainable?
b baggins: As individual believers we are instructed to help those who are suffering.
Yes.
b baggins: This isn’t forced charity (as it is when government intervenes). God does not instruct us to force other people to give charity, just as He does not instruct us to force unbelievers to believe. Right?
I’m not sure that that’s right. God wanted everyone in Israel to partake in a tithe, which was there to help the poor. In any case, I’m not sure that the fact that voluntary giving is right automatically implies that involuntary giving is wrong.
Mike: The question then is “who should decide what a man’s labor is worth?” Should there be an arbiter of that decision or should the market place decide. I would rather the market place since it is the collective wisdom of millions of people acting in their own self interest as opposed to a few powerful individuals acting in their own self interst.
Well, if those are the only two possibilities available, then sure. One might accuse you of occluding the middle, though.
I don’t claim to know what the solution is, but having the marketplace decide a person’s salary is clearly flawed as well. I would like to see a system (though I have no idea how to implement it) that compensates people based on their contribution to society. In general, I think that entertainers and sports figures are not worth the gobs of money we throw at them; and certain people (like educators) are worth a lot more than the pittance we allow.
Mike: This quote is much more than just about wealth.
Yes. But I believe that it includes wealth.
Mike: But again I ask, ” Who is to decide how much any one individual should give or in the case of government, how much should be taken.
[grin] Why not allow the marketplace — in the form of a representational government — decide?
Mike: Compassion is not making an individual on a “handout”, compassion is teaching the individual to reach his maximum potential in all areas of life.
I disagree. I mean, sure, compassion is not always a handout, and frankly, I’d like to see welfare be a different system from one that just gives handouts. But acting on compassion is not always teaching, either.
Compassion, by itself, is a desire to act on someone else’s behalf. It would be a mistake to restrict the actions one might be able to take to one action alone, be it giving monetary contributions or teaching.
Mike: The welfare state has been the most destructive influence on the family ever imposed on the American people. Not slavery prior to 1865 or Jim Crow prior to the voting rights act and modern civil rights movement did as much damage to minorities.
I disagree. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were institutions designed to keep people in their lower social strata. Since the instution of welfare, poverty levels have declined, and the highest levels of (per capita) welfare payout have seen the lowest poverty levels.
Do you have another metric to show that welfare is keeping people from being able to achieve?
Mike: So why have the statists in the Democrat party fought tooth and nail against School vouchers?
As I understand it — and I’m no expert on school vouchers or the benefits and problems they’d present — it’s because the schools that everyone avoids would tend to slip further and further as anyone who can manage to ships their kids to the schools that excel. The kids who are left behind, therefore, suffer even more. We’ve also seen that schools will sometimes take the easy way out when they can’t produce results that people want or expect: they lower the standards. A system where some schools are much less able to educate kids than others — especially if the losers end up being the public schools — could lead to a lowering of public standards. When the government loses, it probably wouldn’t calmly accept defeat; it would more likely change its notions of what kids need to learn when.
It might also force some private schools to become even more selective about whom they choose to admit as demand for education from their institution outstrips their ability to supply. If a goal of education is to provide opportunity, this seems to be counterproductive, since it would seem to lead to certain groups being “left in the dregs”, as it were.
Some think that government ability to pay for private schools may be an entryway for government ability to dictate what is taught in private schools, and find that idea distasteful.
Finally, a school voucher system creates greater levels of insulation between various Boards of Education and the taxpayer. As it is now, board members are routinely elected, and budgets face referendums. The public can voice concerns, even budgetary ones, directly to accountable officials. But if the income a school receives is independent of budgetary referendums, and the only way taxpayers can express concern over how money is being spent is to move students around, how well can we expect that boards of education to get the message? (Perhaps an analogy is appropriate. Let’s say that a certain viewing audience disapproves of the profanity in a TV show. They decide to boycott the show. If the audience is small, their protest may never be heard at all. And even if that particular show’s ratings tank, how long would it take the TV producers to learn that the reason for reduced membership was a specific type of objectionable content?)
Mike: I am all in favor of programs that educate people and teach them marketable skills.
I’d be interested in seeing how that fares against our current programs. Frankly, I like the idea of education better than handouts. But I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that handouts are wrong.
Mike: 1. Would you rather earn $1.25 minimum wage of the 60s or today’s minimum wage of $7.25? 2. If you were a landlord would rather rent a house out at $70 per month of the 60s or at $700 per month? 3. Is the price of gasoline higher today than it was in 1960 (25 cents per gallon) or 2009 at $2.50?
4. What about the price of bread when it was 15 cents per loaf in the early 60 or today at $1.25?
More relevant questions:
* How many people are able to afford food under different models of welfare?
* How many people are able to afford housing?
* How many people are remaining at income levels where food or housing are unavailable?
Currency is only a measure of purchasing power insofar as it has agreed-upon value. That’s why measures that attempt to be more invariant (like the poverty level) exist.
Mike: The Bible has as much to say about the lazy as it does the poor.
Yes. But giving someone a handout does not automatically make them lazy. That’s their decision when it comes to what to do with what you’ve offered them.
Besides, as we’ve mentioned, welfare (by itself) doesn’t generally give enough to live on.
Mike: If you look at most people living in poverty today you will find that they have violated at least one of the above if not all three.
God’s injunctions to give to the poor are not predicated on what rules they have or have not violated.
MattF: “[grin] Why not allow the marketplace — in the form of a representational government — decide?
”
So if our representative government decides to take everyone making over a given amount 100% of their earnings, then so be it. Will we not be better off if government decides how much is enough? Of course the entreprenuers will continue to invest / take risks knowing full well that if they succeed the government will limit their earnings. Representative government does not insure justice or even prosperity. It is a function of the intellegence and involvement of its citizens. Unfortunately, our education system has dumbed down the population especially when it comes to economic issues. Remember, Adoph Hitler came to power in a democratic republic. Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela.
My point: It is up to the few that know history and follow politics to lead the masses in their own self-interest. In the last election the nation lurched to the left and now many are having “buyers remorse.” Conservative Republicans are now the opposition but still few see the actual problem which is the monetary system. The monetary system is the very foundation of a nation’s economy. America’s economic slide began the day it created the Fed and accelerated in 1933 when FDR removed gold from the national economy and then again when Nixon removed gold completely from the US dollar. The “Great Economy” of the mid 80s through the entire 90s and into the new century was an illusion. It was an economy driven by ever increasing debt and expansion of the money supply. No real wealth was created. Assets increased in value only because the excess money and credit inflated prices and inflated bubbles…first in stocks (read: technology) then in real estate. Actions by the Fed and Treasury these past 2 years has now inflated an even more dangerous bubble in bonds. When the long bond breaks below 113, the burst will be heard around the world. The US dollar will rapidly lose its role as reserve currency and inflation will become evident to all and Hyperinflation will be at hand. That is when nearly everyone will suffer….at least those holding only dollar assets. The percentage of poor people will mushroom and there will be little assistence for them since most of the middleclass will join the ranks of the poor. The poor cannot financial assist the poor.
MattF, you are at least honest enough to state that you do not know how certain programs would be implimented. The reason you do not know is that government programs are notorious for waist, fraud, and corruption. The “free market”, and I put the “free market” in quotes becuase I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A TOTALLY FREE MARKET, is the best place to accomplish the goal of providing people with the opportunity to move from poverty to the middle class. Is there a perfect system? Of course not and let’s not try to find one. Government’s role in a Free Market economy needs to be limited. Limited to what? Insuring a level playing field that allows small companies to compete with the large established ones. For example, there should be laws that prohibit selling products below cost in order to drive out competition. The government should establish regulatory agencies like FDA to make sure products are safe and contain exactly what manufacturers say they contain. Within this context, the free market has PROVEN to be the best way to insure freedom and the highest standard of living for the people. Controlled economies, and I must say that the US is now a controlled economy, have ALWAYS proven to be disastrous for a nation. They always lead to lower standards of living and across the board misery for the people.
MattF: “But giving someone a handout does not automatically make them lazy. That’s their decision when it comes to what to do with what you’ve offered them.”
You are engaging in faulty thinking. Man rarely appreciates what he gets for free. I made both of my kids earn and save their money to purchase their cars. They maintain their own vehicles and pay the insurance premiums. My kids have not gotten a single ticket and take care of their vehicles like they are made of gold. Contrast this to some of their friends that recieved cars as presents on their 16th birthday or upon graduation. Most of their parents pay the insurance and many of these “priviledged” children have gotton more than one traffic ticket and one mans son has wrecked three cars.
You can see the same when people come into easy money. How many people win the lottery or get an inheritance and lose the money within a few years? I know that the number is over 50%. The money is squandered because the money was not earned and the person was unable to manage their finances. Human nature is such that if you give people a couch to lay on while supplying their basic needs, most will simply lay on the couch. Government does not do the poor a favor when handouts are given but providing the poor with the resources to exit poverty are denied. The Greatest resource to get out of poverty is an education and yet far to many of the poor are stuck in horrible schools. Just look at the drop out rates in our urban schools. Yet the statists refuse to provide funds to families and let each parent decide where their children go to school. Isn’t it interesting that in most urban schools the teachers in those districts send their children to private schools. It is no wonder that the children of our Congressman, Senators, and most of those working / living in our nation’s capital send their children to PRIVATE SCHOOL. Yet this priviledge is denied the poor who are trapped in school systems where even if they graduate, they are lucky to read on an 8th grade level. Colleges have for years had to offer remedial programs in English and math so incoming students have a chance to make it through 4 years.
THE BOTTOMLINE IS GOVERNMENT DOES ONLY A FEW THINGS WELL. The rest should be left to a free, but with reasonably regulated, MARKETS.
MattF, I noticed that you did not answer my questions. I wonder why? They were simple and required short answers. I will now answer them for you in the hopes that you begin to understand how our current government controlled economic / monetary system is creating so much misery for the people you want to help as well as those that at one time had the resources to assist those in need. Pay close attention to my answers and see if you can begin to see the Biblical truth in what I am saying.
Mike: 1. Would you rather earn $1.25 minimum wage of the 60s or today’s minimum wage of $7.25?
When I earned the minimum wage of $1.25, quarters were 90% silver. Five quarters equalled approximately 1 oz. of silver. Today silver is $16.40 per oz., so my minimum wage in the currency I earned would have to be $16.50 per hour. What about purchasing power of my minimum wage compared to todays. Gasoline was $.25 per gal. So my minimum wage equaled 5 gallons of gasoline per hour. Today’s minimum wage of $7.25 only equals 3 gallons of gas per hour. So my purchasing power was greater under my minimum wage. Who inflates the currency? Government.
2. If you were a landlord would rather rent a house out at $70 per month of the 60s or at $700 per month?
I used these number because my mother told me that one of her rental houses rented out for $70 per month in the early 60s. That $70 represented 56 oz. of silver in her day. Today that house rents for $700 but if she were still getting $70 in silver (converting paper dollars to pre -1964 quarters) she would be getting $925 per month. But worse yet her property tax bill back then was about $120 or about 15% of the income produced by that property. Today she pays $4000 in real estate taxes which is 48% of the income produced by that property. Add to that the increase in income taxes and she is worse off today than she was 45 years ago.
3. Is the price of gasoline higher today than it was in 1960 (25 cents per gallon) or 2009 at $2.50?
This is a good one. When gasoline was $.25 per gal it took 5 quarters or one oz. of silver to buy 5 gallons. Today gasoline is $2.45 and silver is $16.50, which means those same 5 quarters will buy 6.7 gallons of gas. An equivilent price means that in yesterday’s currency gasoline is selling for 19 cents per gallon. Oil in the 50s and 60s sold for 3.50 per bar. average price. Gold was $35 per oz. One ounce of gold bought 10 barrels of oil. Today gold is around $1000, Oil is around $70, so an ounce of gold buys 14 bar. of oil. Oil is cheaper today than it was 40 – 50 years ago.
4. What about the price of bread when it was 15 cents per loaf in the early 60 or today at $1.25?
In terms of silver the situation is the same for bread, butter, eggs, etc.
More relevant questions:
* How many people are able to afford food under different models of welfare?
* How many people are able to afford housing?
* How many people are remaining at income levels where food or housing are unavailable?
Now to answer your questions. Inflation, which is a currency event created by government policy, hurts those that are least able to defend themselves. Capitalism leads to lower consumer prices as private enterprise seeks the most efficient means of production and therefore uses the available capital efficiently. Poor companies go out of business when the economic cycle turns down. This is the cleansing process that government interferes with so the politicians can get re-elected. Government intervention only distorts and throws the system (where people can actually get out of poverty) out of balance, which in the end creates misery for the vast majority of people.
YOU WILL SEE THIS PROCESS UNFOLD, JUST AS IT UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW, OVER THE NEXT 2 TO 5 YEARS. Yesterday the US dollar broke below 76 and hit a new 52 week low. Today it is rallying from oversold conditions, but the rally is weak. Gold continues to trade in a range between $980 and $1020. It is over bought. The longer it trades in that range the stronger the breakout will be as it works off oversold levels. Once $1030 falls, gold will head on up to $1225 before it takes a breather. The US dollar will likely be trading in the low 70s. A break below 70 and hyperinflation becomes reality. How will the elderly on fixed incomes fare when gasoline is $6, bread is $4, their electric bills are up 30 or 40%, etc. You will see poverty on a scale not seen since the Great Depression and most likely worse. At least during the Great Depression 40% of the population still lived in rural communities and could feed themselves. Housing prices collapsed but few people owned homes and rents fell making life easier for those that could find work.
I AM APPAULDED at the economic ignorance in this nation. I am even more astounded at Christian ignorance about what the Bible has to say about economics, the role of government, and a sound monetary system.
MattF, I tell you what, I would agree with you on government providing all the money they provide to the poor if the money actually came from tax revenues. But the truth of the matter is that most of that money comes from “nothing.” It is printed into existence through the Federal Reserve and the Fractional Reserve system. It is this fraudulent system that has reached its ultimate end and is now collapsing. It is this system which you and kash support. While you believe in the state, I believe in the individual. While you believe that government, if only we can find the perfect people to administrate it, will solve man’s problems I believe that people living in freedom and reaping the rewards or consequences of their decisions will make life better for all. I believe that we should help our fellow man, but not through the strong arm of government. The American people have always been generous and have a long history of helping the poor. But when government takes more and more of our income, through either taxes or inflation, we are less able to help those that truly need the help.
MattF, if you think that past 2 years have been rough, you ain’t seen nothing yet. What is coming is so much worse, thanks to our benevolent government and the policies they have adopted the past 96 years.
Mike: So if our representative government decides to take everyone making over a given amount 100% of their earnings, then so be it.
Ah, the old “slippery slope” fallacy. Are you interested in reasonable debate or in wringing your hands and predicting inevitable doom?
Mike: Will we not be better off if government decides how much is enough?
Not my point at all. I’d argue we’d be better off if we let the people decide. A representational government may not be the most efficient way to do that, but it is a way to do that, assuming that the represented take an interest.
Mike: Representative government does not insure justice or even prosperity.
Never claimed that it does.
Mike: The reason you do not know is that government programs are notorious for waist, fraud, and corruption.
(Waste?) Actually, the reason I don’t know is because I don’t have much information. That would be true whether or not we have a corrupt government. I’d like to know what works and what doesn’t, backed up with examples and numbers — not just rhetoric and appeals to general tendencies in government entities.
It’s also the case that the government has stepped in to ameliorate bad situations — create justice, as it were — and even though it might not have been the agency I’d choose to implement this change, no one else stepped up to the plate. (I’m thinking of the problems with labor during the so-called Gilded Age.) It might not be the best solution, but it’s better than nothing.
Mike: Is there a perfect system? Of course not and let’s not try to find one.
I think we agree on this. Where we seem to disagree is that I also think we can find improvement from our current circumstances, and that we ought to pursue that whenever possible.
Mike: Man rarely appreciates what he gets for free.
True. But “rarely” != “never”. And the shrinking poverty levels seem to suggest that a lot of people are using welfare for its ostensible purpose — as a “leg up” to get out of poverty in general.
Some aren’t, to be sure. But that’s not the fault of the system. And I really do believe that even the things we do can be improved so that they more frequently offer genuine benefit.
Mike: MattF, I noticed that you did not answer my questions. I wonder why?
Because I recognized that they were irrelevant. A similar simple question might have been, “You’re buying lunch. Would you rather have five American dollars or fifty lirae?” Without an honest assessment of the buying power of each, the question is meaningless. At best, it’s a shallow ploy to trick people by trying to show up their ignorance in some pet subject.
Mike: MattF, I tell you what, I would agree with you on government providing all the money they provide to the poor if the money actually came from tax revenues.
That’s interesting. Unfortunately, I know even less about the efficacy of choosing various bases for currency than I do about welfare. :T
MattF: “Mike: So if our representative government decides to take everyone making over a given amount 100% of their earnings, then so be it.
Ah, the old “slippery slope” fallacy. Are you interested in reasonable debate or in wringing your hands and predicting inevitable doom?
”
You forget your tax history. When the income tax was first past it was a maximum of 10%. By the 1920s it was 25%. Hoover raised it to 60% followed by FDR to 80% in the late 30s and eventually to 94% in the early 40s. JFK lowered the top marginal rate to 70%. Lobbyist have been busy these past 50+ years for special tax breaks. And thus we have arrived to where we are now where “too big to fail” allows those that play with other people’s money to reap huge bonuses for wreckless gambling with the eventual losses be paid by the American people. YOU AND KASH DO NOT HAVE A CLUE…..NOT A SINGLE CLUE.
MattF: “But “rarely” != “never”. And the shrinking poverty levels seem to suggest that a lot of people are using welfare for its ostensible purpose — as a “leg up” to get out of poverty in general.”
I will not call the economy of the past 15 to 20 years a “great economy” as it was more of an illusion. The foundation of that illusion was that the production moved off shore (eliminating many production jobs) and then producing dollars (cost is none existent) so that we could then buy cheap products overseas. Of course with the loss of much of our production the only way to pay for these items was with credits, and of course our trading partners were more than glad to “vendor finance” our spending. Given that our monetary system was completely fiat there was no problem with what many thought was unlimited expansion of that debt. Government and the Fed encouraged and even provided the means for that expansion. So our economy boomed, but it was all an illusion as no wealth was being created it was actually being consumed. American and the people were living off the accumulated capital of previous generations that had indeed created the wealthiest nation ever known to man. Now like a spoiled rich kid that inherits the family fortune, American squandered that fortune and went into an unsustainable debt.
This was the illusion of the “Great American” economy under Bill Clinton and George Bush 43.
So with this “boom” in the economy poverty levels were bound to decline. It was not government handouts that led people out of poverty, it was massive debt spending that created a consumer based economy which was doomed to fail, and fail is exactly what it is doing right now. When it fails this time the result will be…are you ready for this MattF…..THE RESULT WILL BE: 1. HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT 2. HIGH INFLATION WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR HYPERINFLATION 3. RISING CRIME RATE 4. CIVIL UNREST 5. INCREASED POVERTY ESPECIALLY AMONG THE ELDERLY 5. INCREASED HOMELESSNESS (already in process) 6. MORE AMERICANS TURNING TO PROSTITUTION / SEX TRADE TO MAKE A LIVING (already being seen as young women college graduates are turning to working as strippers because they cannot find work) and finally but not least 7. A WAVE OF FOREIGNERS UNWINDING THEIR HUGE DOLLAR HOLDINGS BUYING UP AMERICAN ASSETS really really CHEAP.
MattF: “Because I recognized that they were irrelevant. A similar simple question might have been, “You’re buying lunch. Would you rather have five American dollars or fifty lirae?” Without an honest assessment of the buying power of each, the question is meaningless. At best, it’s a shallow ploy to trick people by trying to show up their ignorance in some pet subject.”
It was not a cheap trick. It was an attempt to teach you something about money. Basically what is honest money and what is not honest money, and how when anyone other than THE PEOPLE have control over the money supply, it leads to eventual poverty and enslavement of the masses. AGAIN SIR, YOU DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CLUE. You live in total darkness regarding this issue which by the way the Bible is very clear on. The point of my argument will strike you right between the eyes over the next 2 to 5 years. The END GAME IS A DEFLATIONARY COLLAPSE as government then institutes a new currency. I am totally amazed at how people refuse to see what’s coming. The nations of the world are at this moment seeking a new reserve currency. Do you not understand the significance of this. China along with the other BRIC nation, except India and she’s in process, will be trading in a currency other than the US dollar. $90,000,000,000,000 of debt and unfunded liabilities does not bode well for confidence in the US Dollar. What do you think will happen to prices across the board, especially since we depend on imports to sustain us, when the world no longer needs to buy dollars to transact business.? What happens to the price of oil when it is sold in some other currency and dollars are no longer needed? Who will continue to fund our consumer based economy when foreign nations refuse to buy our Treasury Notes/? Don’t answer these questions asyou know they are meant to trick and not instruct you?
MattF: “The poor I referenced from Rethinking Social Policy were, in the main, residing in housing where heat could not be relied on, and where pest infestation was common; and they could not afford fresh fruit and vegetables, dietary staples. This was even with governmental assistance.
Now, the degree of this suffering may not be the same as elsewhere; there are places where people lack anything we’d call housing at all, and may not be able to eat daily (never mind having their nutritional needs met). But the fact of the matter is that there is some measure of suffering going on here, even if it’s not to some arbitrary degree.”
I am poor. I live in an uninsulated house, thus I wear layers of clothing (free, yard sale, thrift store items). I deal with pest infestations – the most reliable solution is keeping a clean house. I have a free cat that loves living off of all manner of pests (e.g. once a scorpion stung me and my cat promptly ate it). I do not generally purchase fresh fruit and vegetables, due to their expense and the fact that they are quick to go bad. I can grow plentiful amounts of “dietary staples” on friends’ land, and am in the process of building fertile soil in a couple small locations (from which they and I will benefit). This is below the poverty line without governmental assistance and without suffering – and I don’t even have that many friends (to trade with – labor for food, etc).
MattF: “Then whence the tithe? And on what basis do you claim that it is not sustainable?”
The tithe should go to truly needy people – people who are doing the best they can with what they have and still can’t overcome hunger, etc. Handouts are not sustainable because they do not give money value, as work does. Handouts encourage waste and they do not teach people to use money wisely – so, they should be used in extreme cases only.
MattF: I’m not sure that that’s right. God wanted everyone in Israel to partake in a tithe, which was there to help the poor. In any case, I’m not sure that the fact that voluntary giving is right automatically implies that involuntary giving is wrong.
Are you going to make the case that widespread forced redistribution of wealth is good? Helping the suffering poor is supposed to be a matter of the heart. That can’t be true when someone’s means for helping the poor is gobbled up by the government for regurgitation on a silver spoon.
Involuntary giving couldn’t ever be called truly good. Do you think God will be proud of what man does by accident or through ignorance? And should I, as an individual, be like the government – stealing from the rich and upper middle class and giving to the poor and lower middle class?
MattF: God’s injunctions to give to the poor are not predicated on what rules they have or have not violated.
That smacks of an empty thought. Is there no context to these injunctions? (have you missed it?) No one of sound mind would hand money to a drug addict or a gambler (those who will waste such help), but the government would. Wasted help is no help at all. Waste-able help should be doled out thoughtfully/compassionately by the individual to those who truly need it (and will utilize it).
Also, poor people should be making friends and working instead of relying on government paperwork.
Fifty years ago 12% of births were to a single or divorced parent. Today that percentage is over 60. Now do you think this might have an impact on poverty. What is the impact of an unstable home on a child’s education? Given the violence and sexual content of many TV programs and other forms of entertainment, how has this impacted the culture and lead to a decaying society. All of this while government entitlements and assistence have grown year after year.
Right now America is in decay and still too many Americans are calling for more of the same. Go figure.
b baggins, made some very good points. Just one more thing. America is not just a place, it is an idea about how people should live their lives and the role of government. We have strayed far beyond the original intent of the Constitution and in doing so we are all poorer for it.
How can America as an idea and a place remain unchanged[but by who's standards?]in an eternally changing world and still continue to successfully survive/compete/exist? Has not America always been a land of change, of deversity and competition, both negative/destructive as well as positive/creative?
What if the “end” of “America” as we fantasize it to be in our own individual ways turned out to be the “birth” of something equally interesting…or better, instead of something worse?
Mike: You forget your tax history.
And you cherry-pick your facts to fit your ideology.
Compare the GNP with the rate of taxation over the same time period and see what happens. Look at the boom years of the 1950s with their marginal tax rate of 90%, for example. Saying that high tax rates causes the American people or economy to suffer sounds nice, but it doesn’t match the actual numbers.
This debate could be so much more sane if we limited ourselves to looking at what has happened historically and in other societies so that we can determine what works, not resorting to rhetoric to bluster and bludgeon our opponents.
Mike: I will not call the economy of the past 15 to 20 years a “great economy” as it was more of an illusion.
The shrinking poverty rates I keep alluding to were from 1950 to the 1980s, not “the past 15 to 20 years”. Starting with Reagan, social spending has been cut rather drastically. Poverty rates have, interestingly enough, tended to level off in the same amount of time.
Mike: It was not a cheap trick. It was an attempt to teach you something about money. Basically what is honest money and what is not honest money, and how when anyone other than THE PEOPLE have control over the money supply, it leads to eventual poverty and enslavement of the masses.
So it wasn’t a cheap trick… it was a tangent that had nothing to do with the poverty level or whether or not the poor have enough to get by? And I was supposed to pick this change of subject up psychically? Nice.
b baggins: The tithe should go to truly needy people – people who are doing the best they can with what they have and still can’t overcome hunger, etc. Handouts are not sustainable because they do not give money value, as work does. Handouts encourage waste and they do not teach people to use money wisely – so, they should be used in extreme cases only.
Okay. I’m certainly on board with the idea that government assistance needs streamlining, if not complete reformation and redirection.
What criteria should we use in order to determine whether or not someone is “doing the best they can”?
b baggins: Are you going to make the case that widespread forced redistribution of wealth is good?
I’m not aganist throwing it out there for discussion. It certainly seemed to be the model for the tithe. We need to understand what God’s principles were in creating tax-assisted help for the poor; if we follow those same principles, while we may not create the most wealth, it would be hard for me to say that we’d be doing it wrong. I’m not saying we should follow exactly the same procedures, but God seemed to see some good in making the society work this way — and wouldn’t it be advisable for us to seek that good, whatever it is?
b baggins: Helping the suffering poor is supposed to be a matter of the heart.
Again, cite?
And how does this relate to the idea of the tithe?
b baggins: Do you think God will be proud of what man does by accident or through ignorance?
I think it’s not always apparent why the things God asks us to do or leads us through are good. I know that’s not the same thing, but it’s also the case sometimes that doing the right thing seems nonsensical, uncomfortable, or counterproductive. Shouldn’t we be seeking the right thing to do as a society, determined by seeing what God has revealed to us through His words and actions? (Not that that’s always easy; trying to figure out why God orders what He orders seldom is.)
b baggins: And should I, as an individual, be like the government – stealing from the rich and upper middle class and giving to the poor and lower middle class?
Again with this “stealing” accusation. Could you please explain to me why this qualifies as stealing, but regular taxation does not?
The government is authorized (Scripturally) to take what it requires from its citizens. I am not.
b baggins: MattF: God’s injunctions to give to the poor are not predicated on what rules they have or have not violated.
That smacks of an empty thought. Is there no context to these injunctions? (have you missed it?) No one of sound mind would hand money to a drug addict or a gambler (those who will waste such help), but the government would. Wasted help is no help at all. Waste-able help should be doled out thoughtfully/compassionately by the individual to those who truly need it (and will utilize it).
Logically, and in principle, I agree with you. After all, I think the important thing is to be loving. We can see, for example, that telling the truth can sometimes hurt more than it heals, depending on the content and delivery of one’s message; Christians are enjoined to tell the truth in love. Models of giving, it seems, might be subject to the same sort of reasoning.
One might ask, then: Is an effort-based model of governmental assistance a good way to make giving more loving?
b baggins: Also, poor people should be making friends and working instead of relying on government paperwork.
At least according to the work done for Rethinking Social Policy, it’s “in addition to”, not “instead of”, in most cases. While a little over half the income of the welfare recipients came from government assistance, a decent amount of the remainder came from family and friends (the “well-wishers” I referred to earlier).
Mike: All of this while government entitlements and assistence have grown year after year.
Do you have citations to show how this breaks down per capita?
MattF: “Do you have citations to show how this breaks down per capita?
”
I am not your encyclopedia. David Walker, the recent NUMBER 1 accountant for the US, stated back in 2006 that unfunded liabilities were unsustainable and had reached over $34 Trillion. The coming economic collapse that you, your children, and grandchildren will suffer through is the direct result of a government that promised to solve everyones problems. So while all the social (I would include unnecessary military spending but we are not speaking on this issue) programs have made life SEAM better for the poor, the net effect will be the impoverishment of the entire nation.
The US must devalue the dollar by at least 50% in order to meet its obligations (read: make debt somewhat manageable.) I believe they must devalued the USD much more but that remains to be seen. A devalued dollar will rob the people just as I have explained has happened over the years, as inflation is a tax on all, and rising prices leads to rising prices. The world is moving rapidly to separate itself from the dollar while we are told by Washington that the government supports a “strong dollar policy.”
The title of this programs should be “Lie to Me” but alas that title has already been taken.
MattF: “So it wasn’t a cheap trick… it was a tangent that had nothing to do with the poverty level or whether or not the poor have enough to get by? And I was supposed to pick this change of subject up psychically? Nice.
”
Prayer, “God give me patience.” The foundation of any economy is its monetary system. History is more than clear on the effects of debasing the money supply. History is clear on outcome of fiat currency. “In the beginning everyone benefits, no one pays. In the end there are no benefits only suffering….everyone pays.” While not the exact quote, it is what is in Jens O. Parssen’s book THE DYING OF MONEY: THE GREAT AMERICAN AND GERMAN INFLATIONS. I will find the quote for you. Our move to fiat currency has taken place over the past 90 years. It all began with the creation of the Federal Reserve. The US dollar is not what it was prior to 1971 or prior to 1933 or prior to 1913.
The scales will fall from your and every Christians eyes over the next 2 to 5 years. If we do not change course, and I do not think anyone in Washington has the courage to do what is right, the economy will suffer further and inflation will destroy whatever wealth anyone has accumulated. This is what is sure to happen. It is not part of a philosophical debate. It is as sure as the sun rising in the east.
MattF: “you cherry-pick your facts to fit your ideology.
Compare the GNP with the rate of taxation over the same time period and see what happens. Look at the boom years of the 1950s with their marginal tax rate of 90%, for example. Saying that high tax rates causes the American people or economy to suffer sounds nice, but it doesn’t match the actual numbers.
”
The 1950s – 1960s saw very little inflation as the USD was still backed by gold. There were also many more exclusions in the tax code that benefited the common man. For example, savings interest was not taxed, while interest payments on all loans could be deducted. JFK, to give the economy a boost, lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%. Then in the 80 Reagan lowered the top marginal rate to 28% while reducing the number of deductions. Unfortunately, Bush raised the top marginal rate, which was followed by Clinton. With deductions gone and interest now being taxed, the tax burden once again became more of a burden. The 90s were marked by years of monetary inflation, which went into hyperdrive during the Bush 43 years. All this monetary inflation led to asset bubbles, which made everyone feel more wealthy than they actually were. Now that the asset bubbles have popped, all that is left is the massive debt, which is now growing exponentially.
The fact of the matter is that in the 1950s the average total tax burden of the average American was under 20% of income. That has grown to 40% of income. Taxes across the board have increased exponentially. Real estate taxes, sales taxes, user taxes, ALL TAXES NOW TAKE MORE OF FAMILY INCOME THAN EVER BEFORE.
Socialism and redistribution of wealth works until you run out of other peoples money. High tax states are seeing a migration of people out of the state. The rich are leaving those states for lower tax states. The other thing we are seeing is the migration of Americans out of the country due to confiscatory taxes. The government has implimented laws to discourage this, but in the end people will leave. Who then will be left to help the poor? When inflation wipes out the wealth of most of the citizens, only the poor will be left. America will become Argentina, which was once the pearl of Latin America. You do not have a clue, and by supporting the Social / Welfare state as beneficial to the country you are basically a Useful Idiot. A Useful Idiot is one that supports the very system that will destroy him.
Here is the famous quote from Jens O. Parsons. See if this does not fit the description of what has taken place in America. (Parson’s wrote his book in 1974):
“Everyone loves an early inflation. The effects at the beginning of inflation are all good. There is steepened money expansion, rising government spending, increased government budget deficits, booming stock markets, and spectacular general prosperity, all in the midst of temporarily stable prices. Everyone benefits, and no one pays. That is the early part of the cycle.
In the later inflation, on the other hand, the effects are all bad. The government may steadily increase the money inflation in order to stave off the latter effects, but the latter effects patiently wait. In the terminal inflation, there is faltering prosperity, tightness of money, falling stock markets, rising taxes, still larger government deficits, and still roaring money expansion, now accompanied by soaring prices and ineffectiveness of all traditional remedies. Everyone pays and no one benefits. That is the full cycle of every inflation.” – Jens O. Parsons
What Parsons doesn’t draw attention to is that declining morality is also part of every inflation. When speculation is easier and more profitable than work, people speculate rather than work. When savings is stolen via inflation, then not only people who work but people who save are considered suckers. Whether quickly, in the case of Wiemar, or slowly, in the case of America, people stop working, stop saving, and then stop planning altogether and live frivolously without thought of tomorrow. Corrupton at the highest level becomes evident and does not raise an eyebrow as people are conditioned to the decaying society.
MattF: “And you cherry-pick your facts to fit your ideology.”
My ideology is Biblical. I believe in a sound monetary system that places more of the control of the money supply in the hands of the people. I do not believe that a handful of men, accountable to no one, should have total power over the money supply. The big banks were bailout, while the small regional banks go under. The banking system is concentrating even more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. All the money supplied to these thieves has gone into the creation of even more OTC derivatives, which brought about this crisis in the first place. The financial storm still has a ways to go. The worst is not behind us but still in front of us. Just like a hurricane has an eye, where it is calm and sunny, the back wall of the storm is the most destructive. Yet all the while Wall Street is headed for record payments to its financial engineers….$74 billion. Treasury refuses to provide information to investigators regarding how all the tax payer bailouts were used. A person has to be insane to support this system. Every day we find more politicians that have not paid their taxes, yet the average citizen facing the IRS does not stand a chance of avoiding Penalties and interest. Government knows that it must always keep a certain portion of the population on its side, thus the welfare state. Once that system collapses with the economy it is too late. All have been impoverished and the most creative hard working people will have left.
Here is a quote well worth remembering,
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged, page 413
America appears to be doomed, as there is no outrage. The Useful Idiots continue to support the very system that will impoverish and enslave them.
Impoverished America. Here is a video that explains what is taking place in America. Robert Kiyosaki is well known for his books on wealth creation. This video explains the corrupt system we have in the US and why it will soon collapse; impoverishing the majority of people, especially the elderly.
Take 11 minutes of your day to watch this interview:
http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=39618165001
b baggins: Helping the suffering poor is supposed to be a matter of the heart.
MattF: “Again, cite?
And how does this relate to the idea of the tithe?”
What about:
“Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” – 2 Corinthians 9:7 (NASB)
Belief in God is a matter of the heart, is it not? (which makes following His commands the same.)
b baggins: 2 Corinthians 9:7
The context there is giving to Paul’s ministry, perhaps extensible to giving to Christian ministries in general — but I think it a stretch to claim that this is saying that we should not have institutional giving to the poor. Didn’t God Himself create institutional giving to the poor in the tithe? Don’t we have to understand Scripture in terms of Scripture?
MattF: “Didn’t God Himself create institutional giving to the poor in the tithe?”
Tithe means 1/10 not 40% of ones income. Add to government theft Social Security and Medicare and you get well beyond 40% of income. Throw in State taxes, user taxes, sales taxes, product taxes; and the effective tax rate goes well beyond anything resembling the tithe. MattF, did you listen to Robert Kiyosaki’s interview. I doubt it, as it would destroy your illusion about our government. If you do happen to watch it, pay close attention to his comments regarding who is running the country and the obsticles OUR government places in front of people that keeps them subjugated and poor. I dare you to watch his interview. The man is spot on and he does not support any political party. He, like a few others, sees the system as broken and dominated by the a handful of very powerful individuals. All this has taken place in the name of making life better for the masses. In the end the masses will be impoverished and enslaved. PLEASE STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT.
Attention all Useful Idiots that believe government is the answer to our social problems. Click on this link for a run down on our current financial situation. You have no idea what awaits the US once the US dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency…..NO IDEA WHAT-SO-EVER.
Those that trust in the goodness of government trust in the goodness of man. I thought Christians were to place their trust in God and God only. It boggles my mind that there are professing Christians that believe ANY Big government could ever be benevolent to the society it serves.
Want to learn something; read this: http://www.sprott.com/Docs/MarketsataGlance/09_09_MAAG.pdf
Mike: Tithe means 1/10 not 40% of ones income.
No kidding. In case you didn’t notice, I wasn’t talking about percentages, just the practice.
I’m busy trying to digest the almighty pile you’ve alluded and linked to up there, made somewhat harder because this isn’t an area in which I have much expertise. It’s a shame, though, that so much of what you have to say is simple proof by assertion. And name-calling.
Mike: I am not your encyclopedia.
I’m not asking you to be. I’m capable of finding the information myself if you let me know what I should be looking for or at. But if you have a point — especially one as strong as what you’re trying to assert — it’s only natural to expect that your reasons for it can show why my ideas about this are flawed, reasons that go beyond hypothetical situations and appeals to authority.
Surely, you know that even though fiat currency has problems, the gold standard has flaws of its own. For example, the total value of all gold we’ve ever mined on the planet is about $4.5 trillion; some fancy jiggering would be necessary to fit gold to the amount of U.S. currency floating around (currently a bit more than $8.3 trillion). Policy would be determined largely through the amount of gold available, promoting inflation when there’s plenty of gold and deflation when there isn’t; some think this lack of flexibility lengthened and intensified the Great Depression (though I haven’t found good reasons as to why; more homework). Some believe that the gold standard is more susceptible to speculative attack, and that that is why interest rates rose in the middle of the Great Depression. Finally, if a power decides to reduce our economic influence internationally under the gold standard, all they need to do is turn in large amounts of our currency for our gold; this actually happened (France did this up to 1970 under Charles de Gaulle).
A reference: “The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression”, written by James D. Hamilton for Contemporary Economic Policy. As I continue research and attempt to understand a balanced treatment of the issue, more may come.
MattF: “Surely, you know that even though fiat currency has problems, the gold standard has flaws of its own.”
Fiat currency has problems!!! No fiat currency has ever survived the test of time. During the Roman Empire the emperor debased the money by adding base metals and taking out precious metals, thus allowing the government to expand the money supply. The end result was hyperinflation, high taxes, a rotten economy, corruption, political priviledge, and of course the final collapse of Rome itself. Throughout history, debased and fiat currencies have at first provided economic stimulation but in the end created massive suffering for the people. THE UIS DOLLAR AS WE KNOW IT, IS NOT 200 YEARS OLD, IT IS 38 YEARS OLD AS IT WAS DELINKED FROM GOLD ON AUGUST 14, 1971.
So those of you that think that the Fiat dollar will survive are betting against 5000 years of history. Ina addition to this FACT, you are betting against the Bible and God Himself, since he considers a diverse measure an abomination. Here is the equation:
God see a diverse measure as an abomination; the US dollar can be created at will by the Fed; money is a measure; the value of the USD fluctuates with supply; therefore the US dollar is a diverse measure; therefore the US dollar is an abomination unto the Lord.
As for gold having its problems????? Well I just do not understand that statement. I guess a tree has its problems (you can make a club to kill your fellow man), as does ALL OF GOD’s CREATION. But OH, I thought God said all that he had made was Good, very Good. The only thing God created which turned out to be pretty rotten was man because He gave man free will. It is man that takes God’s creation and uses it for evil purposes. GOLD IS GOOD. As is Silver, iron, copper, oil, zinc, lead, etc. It is HOW MAN USES GOD’S CREATION THAT DETERMINES WHETHER THAT CREATION IS USED FOR GOOD OR EVIL. Gold is honest money and cannot be manipulated by man. While it can be used for evil purposes makes no difference as everything in God’s creation can be used for good or evil. It is man that is evil.
I’ve addressed this issue 1000 times if I have addressed it once. The US dollar is not part of God’s creation it is purely the creation of sinful man and it is controlled by sinful man. Knowing what we know about man, how can one equate gold / silver money, God’s creation, with Sinful Man’s money.
Is it no wonder that whenever a despotic leader takes over a nation and wants complete control over it, the first thing he does is take gold and silver out of the monetary system. Hitler did it as did Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, Peron, etc.
MattF, just take 11 minutes out of your day and listen to the Kiyosaki’s interview.
MattF: “some think this lack of flexibility lengthened and intensified the Great Depression (though I haven’t found good reasons as to why; more homework).”
The some you speak of are totally wrong. It was government that lengthened the depression and made it a Great 12 year depression. GOT THAT IT WAS GOVERNMENT THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM. Even Henry Morganthau, Sec of Treasury under FDR stated in 1939 that after years of deficits unemployment was unchanged from the day the Administration took office. UNCHANGED UNEMPLOYMENT even though the government had spent billions to ease the depression. What the government did create in the rotten economy was inflation. From 1933 to 1937, prices rose 15%, in large part because the government devalued the USD plus it raised taxes on the wealthy, and implimented all sorts of new regulations. This is exactly what the government is doing now. We are now 2 years into this crisis, even though the government is providing hundreds of billions in stimulus. Remember Bush’s tax rebates. That was the first stimulus. And with each stimulus things get worse. Just wait until the Bush tax cuts sunset and new taxes are added on top of the slumping economy. Given the massive money printing, a hyperinflationary depression is now almost a sure bet. This is not rocket science, it is simple logic. This era in US history will be entered in the books as just another example of what happens to a nation that adopts a fiat currency. Our founders warned us and gave us a Constitution that provided for sound money. We chose to ignore the founders in 1913 and we are now discovering that they were indeed right. Our founders knew their history; while we are stuck on stupid. Solomon was right, nothing changes because man does not change, and never learns. Man always thinks he is smarter than the last guy and will not repeat the same mistakes. Surely this time a fiat currency will work out for the nation….surely after thousands of years of history to the contrary….this time man will get it right and not create a mess. We are much wiser than our ancestors and much wiser than God Himself.
Hang on MattF, you are already experiencing what every other nation has experienced that chose a fiat currency as the foundation of their monetary system…..how does Civil unrest, rising crime rates (prostitution, drugs, kidnappings, theft, assaults, etc.) increased poverty, starvation, homelessness, and death among the elderlysound. This is what you are about to witness thanks to the benevolence of Big Government.
MattF: “Finally, if a power decides to reduce our economic influence internationally under the gold standard, all they need to do is turn in large amounts of our currency for our gold; this actually happened (France did this up to 1970 under Charles de Gaulle).”
This is because America had embarked on a policy of “Guns and Butter.” We had instituted the Great Society while engaged in a foreign war, and a global Cold War, while spending gobs on the Space program, while instituting Medicare later to be followed by medicaid. Under LBJ America closed the Soc. Security Trust Fund and started spending the surplus with the general fund.
In other words, the US had become fiscally irresponsible, which is why the French decided to exchange their paper dollars for gold. Nixon could have devalued the USD but that would have been unpopular so he closed the gold window. Once that happened the spending continued and by 1980 the USD had lost much of its value, and inflation was in the double digits. Only the actions of Paul Volcker, the then chairman of the Fed, saved the USD but in doing so he triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression. All that Volcker did was undone by Greenspan, and the increased spending by all the Presidents and Congress in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
Gold would have kept the US honest and it would have prevented the dismantling of US industry. Your point about France and the US dollar proves my point. Man could not stand the limits placed on government when you have an honest monetary system.
MattF: “Some believe that the gold standard is more susceptible to speculative attack, and that that is why interest rates rose in the middle of the Great Depression.”
Hey MattF, who controls interest rates? THE FED. In a gold standard, interest rates are a function of savings, and therefore controlled by the people. In a truly capitalist system with sound money, Interest rates are a result of the law of supply and demand. People will save part of their income. This pool of savings is made available to the private sector by the banks. The larger the pool of money the lower interest rates will be to attract borrowers. When more borrowers appear, the money supply expands as does production and the economy (the money is used to build factories, retail stores, homes, etc.) The savings of the people are an indication of future spending (people save for a variety of reason but eventually these savings will go to put money down on a house, buy a car, send a child to school, etc.) As interest rates come down people decided to save less and spend more. Reduced savings reduces the pool of capital available so interest rates rise to encourage savings. And so we get the business cycle with interest rates fluctuating but not the double digit to zero interest rates we see when an outside group is in charge of the money supply.
This is free market capitalism at its best. What makes people more prosperous under this system is that prices drop as the nation becomes more productive. Lower prices gives people more capital to save and invest and the economy grows in real terms. Everyone benefits. Under such a system, government is limited since there is only a certain amount of money / capital in the system. If government consumes too much of the available capital the economy suffers and in a democratic republic the politicians would be voted out. A government could not go to war, or expand military spending without the support of the people since they would face higher taxes or have to fund the war by buying bonds as we did in WW II.
Under a fiat system the government can buy pass the people and politicians are free to impose programs that will get them re-elected and may not be best for the nation. This is why we have weapons systems the military does not want or need, why we can go to war or get involved militarily without the support of the people, and why politicians can buy our votes with money they don’t have.
I don’t know how else to explain this . I have tried my best to explain my position and why the Bible is correct when it comes to our EVIL monetary system. I feel sorry for anyone that REFUSES to see this. The evidence is all there. $118 Trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities is unsustainable. This nation will be crushed under that burden and the people will be impoverished. Everyone will suffer and suffer terribly….everyong except the ruling elite and the corporations that surround them. You will see this unfold before your very eyes over the next few years…..as a matter of fact you are seeing this unfold as I write. Next year expect to see ghost malls as commercial real estate goes in the tank.
MattF: ““The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression”, written by James D. Hamilton ”
There is an antiGold cartel made up of Central Banks and their allies. John Maynard Keynes called gold a barbaric relic of an ancient past. This homosexual, atheist, socialist established this mindset in America during the FDR administration. You need to read what Alan Greenspan wrote about gold in 1966. Ron Paul held up Alan’s paper during one of the Fed Chairman’s testimonies before Congress and asked him if he still agreed with what he had written in 1966. Sir Alan said that he agreed with every word he had written. Here are the final paragraphs of that work. Pay close attention:
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
From: GOLD AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM by Alan Greenspan, 1966.
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
MattF, and anyone else that believes in the state / government as the solution; please watch this 11 minute video of the interview with Robert Kiyosaki and tell me what you think. This man has no political ax to grind and he basically states that the Fed has run the world since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. He also says the Fed and the banks have created this current crisis. He blows the conventional wisdom regarding inflation, 401ks, and taxes right out of the water.
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THIS VIDEO: http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=39618165001
MattF: Didn’t God Himself create institutional giving to the poor in the tithe?
I don’t think many people would have a problem with a 3.33% poor-relief tax.
We can’t generalize the example from the Bible (an edible 1/10th of produce every third year – brought to towns for Levites, strangers, orphans, and widows) into “institutional giving” – to say that all institutional giving is right or that what goes on in this country is right.
You repeatedly claim that our poor-relief measures are “broken and flawed” – what do you mean? I have seen those claims, but I still got the impression that you were a supporter.
MattF: “The shrinking poverty rates I keep alluding to were from 1950 to the 1980s, not “the past 15 to 20 years”.”
Do you think that poor people are a thing of the past? When poverty is poverty, that’s when people are most driven to leave it (yet not everyone does or can). Citing shrinking poverty rates is meaningless, in my opinion. What would happen if our poor were dropped off in another country, how would they fare I wonder. I couldn’t imagine it being very good – because what they have here seems too artificial.
Shrinking poverty rates from 1950 to 1980 were not by and large a function of government handouts. After WWII America was about the only advanced economy that was not bombed. Most nations lay in ruin. We had most of the world’s gold and were the top CREDITOR nation. America during most of this period was also the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. If it was manufactured it was “Made in America.”
From 1980 to present, America has become the Greatest Debtor Nation the world has ever seen. Our balance of payment deficit hit a high of $3 billion per day and represented 6% of GDP. Had it not been for Bretton Woods, which established the gold backed dollar as the world reserve currency, which continues up to this day, the USD would have died years ago. In the end, our government spending to “provide a safety net”, frivolous spending, and to maintain a military across the globe will bankrupt the nation. At that point we will stop helping the poor for we shall all be poor. That MattF and kash is what our social welfare state which produced bigger and bigger government has delivered. This is what you and other statist (those that believe the state is the answer to all of man’s ills) have delivered. Congratualation, it is not often that one gets to experience the destruction of a great nation.
The tithe was to be 1/10 of what everyone earned. I do not recall where in the Bible it said that only the rich were to give. Everyone paid the tithe. Unfortunately in our tax system, the bottom 50% of income pays almost NO TAX, leaving the burden to fall on the upper 50% of income earners, which are the producers.
Oh and did I forget to mention that the “Cash for Clunkers” program will require the recipients of that benefit to pay taxes on their “Cash”. So a person in the 28% tax bracket will have to pay the IRS over $1000 for the cash they received for their clunker.
Now we know that several of the car companies withdrew or reduced their incentives since the government was doling out $3500 – $4500 dollars. But if there had been no Cash for Clunkers program the automaker discounts would not be taxed.
So here is a classic example of our efficient government and how it benefits society.
Oh and did I forget to mention that car sales have fallen off a cliff since the Cash for Clunkers program. My guess is people will now await the next government rebate before buying a car. So let’s review the impact of a very simple cash for clunkers program:
1. It was meant to stimulate the economy and save jobs but will have the opposite effect. Why, because the problem was debt and now people have more debt. Servicing that debt will be problematic for many and will certain cause them to curtail spending in other areas. So what jobs were temporarily saved in the auto industry are lost in other areas of the economy. Net effect is no job gains.
2. Whatever boost Cash for Clunkers provided the auto manufacturers merely led to them losing future sales and booking them now. Car sales are dropping and as the economy continues to produce few new jobs (the jobless recovery they keep talking about), the end result will not be good for auto companies and the companies that supply parts.
3. Cash for Clunkers has led to a rise in prices for the big cars which people seem to be buying. The destruction of the automobiles that were traded in has led to a shortage, real or perceived, of big cars and trucks. The government gained very little by destroying the vehicles that were traded in. If the goal was the reduction of greenhouse gases, the net effect of Cash for Clunkers was minimal.
The government does few things well, which is why the founding fathers so wisely limited government’s power. Like a spoiled child, we have taken the wisdom of our forefathers and thrown it right out the window.
Mike: This is what you and other statist (those that believe the state is the answer to all of man’s ills) have delivered.
Rather arrogant of you to tell me what I believe, isn’t it? Especially in cases like these, where you happen to be exactly wrong.
All the same, I’m continuing to do homework. Thanks for the alternate explanation for the falling poverty rates, by the way; knowing what different explanation exist for the same phenomena are allows a more sane assessment of which explanation happens to match the facts.
MattF: knowing what different explanation exist for the same phenomena are allows a more sane assessment of which explanation happens to match the facts. Hoo-wharf. Let me try again: knowing different explanations for the same phenomenon allows a more sane assessment of which explanation happens to match the facts.
Mike: Congratualation, it is not often that one gets to experience the destruction of a great nation.
Well, no, but with respect, people predicting the Doom of Big Things on the Internet happens with alarming frequency.
MattF: “Mike: This is what you and other statist (those that believe the state is the answer to all of man’s ills) have delivered.
Rather arrogant of you to tell me what I believe, isn’t it? Especially in cases like these, where you happen to be exactly wrong.
”
Where have I been wrong and what is so arrogant about stating the truth. Had I stated that the crisis we faced was delivered by the Republicans I would be accused of being a Democrat ideologue. Had I stated the Democrats are at fault, I would be accused of being a Right wing fanatic.
You will notice that I use the term statist. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are statists. Both have grown government and neither has done one single thing to alter the course we have been on for 9 decades.
The reason I call you, as well as my sisters, who are devout Republicans statists, is because you have stated that it was through government that certain problems have been adequately addressed. Nothing could be further from the truth. All that has happened is that the ship of state is sinking ever faster. MY BASIC POINT has been that in order to really begin to fix things we must take away the power of the Fed to print money at will. The only way this has ever been accomplished is to tie the monetary system to gold and / or silver. You have stated that poverty levels have fallen since 1950 due to government programs to redistribute wealth. I say that the lower poverty rates were due to a “real’ strong economy from 1950 – 1985 and then the illusion of a strong economy (this one was based on rising debt) from 1985 – 2006. All government did was provide a “couch” for the laziest to lay down on a live off dole. Yes, there were some that were actually helped by government assistence, but by and large the welfare state has not just been a failure but a complete disaster.
For the other views on the subject of Economics you don’t need to spend weeks researching the issue. All you have to do is see what those individuals that PREDICTED THE CURRENT CRISIS well in advance of its ocurrance (they were also ridiculed by their peers and the majority of analysts) are saying now.
Individuals like Peter Schiff, Dr. Marc Faber, Jim Puplava, John Loeffler, Peter Grandich, Gerald Celente, Robert Kiyosaki, David Schoon, Steve Saville, Jim Sinclair, Puru Saxena, Michael Panzer, and Jim Willie, just to name a few,. all predicted the economic crisis we are now facing. Two devout Christians that saw the writing on the wall were Doug Tjaden, whose website http://www.traditionsofmen.org should be a must for all Christians, and Jason Hommell, an believer that Silver is your best bet. The leader of the pack in predicting this crisis is of course Peter Schiff. A google search will bring up numerous articles and You Tube videos where he has appeared on CNBC and other financial news casts.
Now can research all those individuals that kept telling us throughout most of this decade that all was well…..they never saw the crisis coming. But it makes more sense to see what was and still is the unconventional wisdom that actually GOT IT RIGHT.
I’ve provided numerous resources that backs up everything I have stated. I’ve made a few predictions that have actually worked out pretty much as I said they would. Back last spring I said that that gold would bottom in June (the June swoon I called it) and then strengthen from July on. I wasn’t exactly correct as gold bottomed in the first week of July so I was a week off in my timing. I also stated at the time that the US dollar would weaken and the stock market would rally. As the market bottomed in the first week of March, I stated that it was set up for a strong counter trend rally. So far I have been 100% correct. Oh, I also stated that silver would outperform gold, which it has.
But all of that was in the past. I will tell you now that while there is much bearishness on the stock market, I predict that the coming decline in the stock will not be very deep or long lasting. My target low for the S&P 500 is 880, before we set up for the next upleg. The US dollar should strengthen which will cause gold to sell off, be weak, during the month of October. Upside target on the USD is 81 to 82 max and the absolute low, which I do not think it will get anywhere near this level, for gold is the mid to low $700. I actually believe gold will hold $850, before embarking on its next upleg that carries it to $1200 – $1300.
The stock market rally is nothing more than a counter trend move in an ongoing Secular Bear Market. In real terms this stock market is headed much lower although in nominal terms it could go to 20,000 or 100,000. It all depends on how far the USD falls.
Just one question. You have stated that you are studying the subject of the economy. Have you taken the time to listen to the Robert Kiyosaki interview? He makes more sense in 11 minutes than all the Wall Street pundits.
MattF: “Well, no, but with respect, people predicting the Doom of Big Things on the Internet happens with alarming frequency. ”
True, but I like to listen to those that actually got it right. Just listen to the video, “Peter Schiff was Right 2006 – 2007″. Peter was 100% correct and stuck to his guns even inspite of the market pundits that ridiculed him. Here is the link to this very excellent video of a man that PREDICTED THIS CRISIS. He actually saw it coming when THE EXPERTS including Ben Bernanke and other government advisor / experts said all was well.
Video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
MattF, if you really want to learn something about real economics, not the Keynesian model which the US adopted and is fatally flawed, just take the time to listen to any of the Dr. Marc Faber interviews.
The best trend forecaster is Gerald Celente who predicted the crisis and its social implications. Gerald is not limited to the markets in his predictions, he also speaks of the social implications of a dollar collapse. THESE MEN AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN 100% RIGHT. We ignore them at our own risk.
Here is a video that includes Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. Ron was villified by both the right and left, which why I believe he is the only true statesmen in America. The rest, Republicans and Democrats, are politicians.
Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOCnVaZsMvw&feature=related
HERE ARE A COUPLE OF GERALD CELENTE INTERVIEWS:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=gerald+celente+predictions&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=SkfHSoKdNY-m8Ab8xKThCA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4# (The first and the fourth interviews are the best.) MattF, you say you want to do “your homework”. This assignment will take less than an hour of your life. I guarantee you that at the very least you will begin to rethink what you believe about our economy. All it takes is a few minutes of your time, an open mind, and the courage to seek the truth.
By the way, Gerald Celente predicted the crash of 1987 and the break up of the Soviet Union. There is another man that has made similar predictions well before they happened but his name escapes me. I recall his prediction in the 1970s of the rise of China of as an economic superpower, an energy crisis, and the coming wars with Islamic terrorists.
I just recalled the name of another man that has predicted long term trends like the rise of Islam and a new war against these religious fanatics. He also predicted the rise of China and Asia in the world economy and the fall of the West, especially the US. The man is James Dines.
Mike: The reason I call you, as well as my sisters, who are devout Republicans statists, is because you have stated that it was through government that certain problems have been adequately addressed.
You defined “statist” as “(those that believe the state is the answer to all of man’s ills”, and lumped me into that group. That is not something I happen to believe; therefore, you did not tell the truth, and it was arrogant in the first place to tell me what I believe. My position on this matter is merely that (1) I see nothing wrong with governmental assistance of the poor, and (2) if one judges adequacy of help by the number of people leaving poverty, welfare seems to have (historically) done a better job than generous individuals. Honestly, I wish it were not this way, but that’s what I thought I saw. Nothing in this stance means or implies that I think the state is the answer to all of man’s ills, or even that I think the state is the answer to this particular ill.
Mike: True, but I like to listen to those that actually got it right.
Besides historical accuracy, do you have criteria for determining which economists are worth your time and which seem merely to be engaging in useless pontification?
MattF: “My position on this matter is merely that (1) I see nothing wrong with governmental assistance of the poor, and (2) if one judges adequacy of help by the number of people leaving poverty, welfare seems to have (historically) done a better job than generous individuals.”
More people left poverty when we were under a gold / silver based monetary system than under the current system. You are taking number from the Great Depression Era, which was caused by a combination of Fed actions in the 1920s and made worse by the US government in the 1930s. This great government drive to eliminate poverty is going to in the very near future wipe out the middle class in America. We will then resemble the poor countries where you have the wealthy elite and the masses live in abject poverty. If you believe the state can solve social problems like poverty, then you are a statist.
MattF: “Besides historical accuracy, do you have criteria for determining which economists are worth your time and which seem merely to be engaging in useless pontification?
” I dismiss all Keynesians as this economic system, which was designed by an atheist / socialist, is fatally flawed. When I speak of people that actually got it right are those that predicted this economic crisis when the VAST MAJORITY of analysts / economist / government officials did not see the crisis coming. The ones that got it wrong are the ones that are telling us that the worst is behind us and the economy is recovering. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ones that saw the economic crisis coming years before it happened, are telling us now that government is making things worse. Have you taken the time to listen to the Robert Kiyosaki interview or the Peter Schiff Was Right Video or the Gerald Celente videos. Probably not as you have not responded to them. You appear not to be interested in truth but are more comfortable with the lies, like government will fix everything….the Fed is working in the best interest of the American people…..the bailouts were necessary to spare the people from even more misery…..the government supports a strong dollar policy…..our government leaders are interested in the welfare of the people… we cannot function without our current banking system. Good heavens man, the government could not even run the Cash for Clunkers program correctly. EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TOUCHES, outside what government does well which is very few things, IS A COMPLETE MESS. You appear to be a the type of person that needs the anvil to fall on your head before you feel the pain. I cannot believe that Christians, who are suppose to know the Bible are so blind to what is going on. I’ve given you some of the best sources of information and you apparently refuse to check them out. You will not even spend 11 minutes to watch a video that offers a different point of view….different from the mainstream. You know what? Stay in darkness and go down with the ship. Know full well that as the crisis continues to unfold you will have been part of the instrument that pushes the elderly into poverty, and our children and grandchildren into slavery. What a great Christian testimony.
A quote worth remembering:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents . . .” –James Madison
Mike: More people left poverty when we were under a gold / silver based monetary system than under the current system.
Interesting statement. Do you have numbers and citations to back that up?
Mike: If you believe the state can solve social problems like poverty, then you are a statist.
Okay. But I don’t think the state can solve the problem. I think they can help to alleviate the problem, and the only numbers I’ve seen seem to indicate that, but that’s not nearly the same thing as solving it.
Mike: I dismiss all Keynesians as this economic system, which was designed by an atheist / socialist, is fatally flawed.
Okay. But I have to admit that I’m a bit more of an empiricist than that. Do you have anything to point to besides a difference in philosophy or world view and famous names? It would be helpful to have a mental model to analyze and test, as well as be able to use it to come to accurate conclusions about situations the original authors never imagined. (That’s the advantage of a good economic model.)
Mike: Have you taken the time to listen to the Robert Kiyosaki interview or the Peter Schiff Was Right Video or the Gerald Celente videos.
Yeah. Still attempting to analyze them and their statements, which is kind of slow going because this isn’t my strong suit. It takes a decent amount of research to make sure that reports aren’t cherry-picking their facts.
Mike: Probably not as you have not responded to them. You appear not to be interested in truth but are more comfortable with the lies, like government will fix everything….the Fed is working in the best interest of the American people…..the bailouts were necessary to spare the people from even more misery…..the government supports a strong dollar policy…..our government leaders are interested in the welfare of the people… we cannot function without our current banking system.
With all due respect, it may be that one reason people aren’t listening to you is your impatience with those who aren’t converted into instant and total agreement by your words, and your personal attacks against those who disagree.
Mike: You appear to be a the type of person that needs the anvil to fall on your head before you feel the pain.
I’m the kind of person who requires extraordinary evidence to believe extraordinary claims. If I required pain to realize things, I’d have checked out of this debate a long time ago, realizing that there was nothing else you seem interested in trying to deliver to your opponents.
Mike: I’ve given you some of the best sources of information and you apparently refuse to check them out.
This takes time, Mike. You’ve presented a deluge of information. The only kind of “understanding” that changes quickly, kowtows to people who speak harshly and make personal attacks, and takes a position because a proponent knows how to drop names, is blind acceptance. If that’s all that you’re comfortable with, it doesn’t speak well of your position. I have to be able to put these claims in context — to know why I may have misinterpreted my information, to know what empirical data these new models are based on, to know what contexts these models apply to and don’t, and so on.
MattF: “Interesting statement. Do you have numbers and citations to back that up?”
You have made similar statement regarding the time period starting in 1950. Of course you attribute this to government programs which really did not begin until the 60s. The flood of immigrants that came to America were able to move out of poverty within a generation. They did not come by the millions because America offered food stamps, and low income housing. Yes there were many injustices, and living and working conditions were terrible for many, but in very short order they worked, sent their kids to school and most became quite successful. I recall in one of my readings that during the period from 1850 to 1930 the more people had moved from the poor class to middleclass than at any time in human history. If you want to look it up you can. I do know that my father came to America from Cuba with nothing and even though he only had a 9th grade education, 2 kids went to college while one entered law enforcement, and he was able to save enough to purchase real estate which he rented out. All the while my mother was a stay at home mom. My entire extended family came from Cuba in the 1960, 1970, and the last in 1990 and all moved quite rapidly to the middleclass WITH NO HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT. None of them got so much as a food stamp. They came here found work, sent their kids to school made sure they studied and most of my cousins have college educations. As a matter of fact I know very few people….make that no one that moved out of poverty due to government assistence….NOT ONE. I have had experience with those on the dole that were quite content to stay there. My mother has 2 residential rental properties and the worst tenants have been those that recieve government help. A couple turned out to be drug dealers to boot. They almost burned her property to the ground. You have it wrong, the most of the people that get out of poverty do so inspite of the government. Listen to what Robert Kiyosaki says about how government impedes peoples ability to move into the upper income levels. You have yet to watch this 11 minute video. Why?
MattF: “With all due respect, it may be that one reason people aren’t listening to you is your impatience with those who aren’t converted into instant and total agreement by your words, and your personal attacks against those who disagree.”
MattF:”This takes time, Mike. You’ve presented a deluge of information.”
My lack of patience has to do with the fact that I provide all sorts of links to differing worldviews and you don’t even bother to watch an 11 minute video. I present page after page (might have been on another thread) of how Christians are out of God’s will went it comes to finances….make that deep in sin……and how our monetary system goes completely against what the Bible says and I have Christians that will not tell me or Doug Tjaden, who is the real master on this issue, where we are wrong!!! Have you been to http://www.traditionsofmen.org ? I doubt it. Have you watch any of Doug’s videos were he walks a Christian through what the Bible says about money and what the Fed has done with the system? I doubt it. These are all very short 6 minute videos. YOu can take 6 minutes out of your busy time on the internet to learn Biblical economics. I have not given anyone more than they can handle. I have provided links to sites that it takes is a few minutes of listening to someone other than the government / Financial media hacks that keep telling us to stay the course they will fix everything. If these are the den of thieves you want to listen to, then go ahead. Sink with the ship and take all your loved ones with you….because that is what you are doing. It is my hope that gold does one more sharp pull back to give people one last chance before it blasts through $1000 decisively and heads on towards $1200. I’m sure financial TV and the government will keep up the propaganda that all is well with the US dollar and gold is a bad investment. I guess when gold hits $2500 to $3000, and the dollar is headed for the trash heap of history, where all fiat currencies have landed, then you will decide maybe its time to protect your assets. Of course by then it is too late. Inflation is at first incidious and when people realize their money is losing value, it is too late as then it goes into hyperdrive. You will see the vast majority of the Baby Boomers impoverished thanks to the benevolent government that has eased poverty all these years. They helped the poor then killed everyone in the society as they bled us all dry. You don’t see it because you do not want to see it. My patience is exhausted. I’ve given you the information, it is for your own good. Do with it as you will. If you keep all your assets in the USD you are the riskiest speculator….make that gambler there is….all your eggs are in the dollar basket and that basket is loaded down with $118 trillion worth of debt and unfunded liabilities. Deficits are now running at 12% of GDP. The Argentine peso collapsed when Argentina’s debt passed 4% of GDP. The only reason the USD has not collapsed is its Reserve Currency status, but don’t worry the world is working on a transition out of dollars. May God help you and all those that do not see this coming….make that those that do not want to see it coming….but then again, it is God that is bringing the system down. Only Noah and his family were saved, everyone else died in the flood…only Noah believed God. The Bible is clear on the issue of a fiat currency…it is an abomination unto the Lord because it is a diverse measure. Listen to what Doug Tjaden has to say on this subject. As a Christian you either believe the Bible or you don’t.
MattF: “I’m the kind of person who requires extraordinary evidence to believe extraordinary claims. If I required pain to realize things, I’d have checked out of this debate a long time ago, realizing that there was nothing else you seem interested in trying to deliver to your opponents.
”
The only extraordinary things are the size of the US debt and unfunded liabilities. This has been backed up by none other than David Walker, the previous Comptroller who has been warning of the coming catastrophe for several years. Google David Walker and see what you come up with. I have also stated THAT NO FIAT CURRENCY HAS SURVIVED THE TEST OF TIME. I have asked you and others to show me just one that has. ALL FIAT CURRENCIES HAVE ENDED IN ECONOMIC DISASTER FOR THE NATIONS THAT ACCEPTED THEM AS THEIR MONETARY SYSTEM. But somehow you think that this time it will be different. Because we are the US our fiat currency, which is being debased now at an alarming rate, will survive. Do you not understand what happens when Money Dies? The consequences for the people are horrific.
MattF, here is a 4min. 45sec. video on the US dollar. The men interviewed are currency speculators but at the beginning of this segment you get Ben Bernanke saying that the dollar is likely to head lower. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1282576832&play=1#
MattF: “As I understand it, the poverty level is defined by income.” This is from your message # 10. What good is income if the money is worthless. Unfortunately, government statistics are skewed (read: unrealistic….down right lies) in favor of government. The last thing government wants us to realize is that they are failing at improving the quality of life. What a person earns must be put in term of the value of the money they receive. I have shown, on more than one occasion, that inflation has robbed the people of their labor. Today’s minimum wage is lower in real terms than the minimum wage of the early 1960s when our money was based on silver. Government inflation numbers are so far off the mark, that they are no closer to reality than Alice in Wonderland.
The problem with you and kash is that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the propaganda issued by the statists and those that profit from the state, regarding the role of money in a society. Monetary history is nonexistent in our universities, and when it is presented it is done so with the slant that our current banking system is the 9th wonder of the world. If the truth be known it really comes out of the depths of Satan’s heart. Yet Christians accept it and rejects what God has provided as money, namely gold and silver. Those Christians that believe the USD is money and gold and silver are barbaric relics to be rejected are embracing Satan’s lie and denying God’s truth. I have discussed this issue with deacons in my church as well as my pastor and they do not understand what I am trying to tell them. I have given them a 2 page dissertation on the whole issue from a Biblical point of view and most continue in their “traditions of men.” They still believe God will protect the church and them from the coming crisis. I can count on one hand the number of people that have seen the light regarding the issue of fiat currency, and why the US is now in decline as a nation.
MattF, you said I should show more patience. This thread began about 1 month ago and I am still debating the same points. mherman is the only person on this site that has actually said she visited Doug Tjaden’s website. She stated at the time that he had presented a very good case on Biblical economics. kash has also visited Doug’s website but was not convinced. Of course she never stated where Doug was wrong, she just flat out disagreed.
I’ve often wondered what it must have been like on the Titanic when the ship first hit the iceberg. I now know. Some knew the ship was going down and took the necessary precautions while most accept what the captain and crew said at first that all was well. Within a very short period of time the second group realized that all was not well but by then it was too late. Their fate was sealed. They chose to believe the lie and paid with their lives. The USS United States has hit the iceberg and is now doomed, thanks to what our government has done these past 2 generations. A few of its passengers know the ship is doomed, while the majority of citizens think all is well. When the majority realize that there is no saving the ship of state from its inevitable destruction it will be too late to board a life boat. The life boat is made up of non-US dollar denominated assets with a healthy dose of gold and silver bullion products.
MattF, you say I am impatient. This issue was made public on WTRU at the beginning of 2009, when Doug Tjaden and I appeared on Stu’s Truth Talk Live radio broadcast. One year later, with the economic situation getting progressively worse just as we said it would, and still the only ones that agree with Doug and I are the ones that agreed back then and understood the fatal flaws in our monetary system. No one has yet to refute the data we provided, like unfunded liabilities and debt in the 10s of trillions of dollars..impossible to pay. No one has provided a single example of a debased monetary system that led to prosperity….all ended in disaster. All I get is the usual statist propaganda which says absolutely nothing related to the truth. I have tried to explain to people how they can insure their hard earned wealth against a government that will surely rob them as they have done for decades, and all I get in response is the same old statist rhetoric. Those statists have accepted the traditions of men as truth and have thus nullified God’s word, and most of those are Christians. I am not the arrogant one…..those that reject God’s word are arrogant as they deny what the creator and savior has to say on the subject. You cannot get more arrogant than thinking man knows better than God.
“A monetary system that is a tool for evil.” Doug Tjaden’s introduction to his “Traditions of Men” ministry. Here is a direct link to the introduction and the series.
http://www.traditionsofmen.org/html/video_series.html
Let’s see who can take 7 minutes each day in the next 2 weeks to learn what God has to say about money and what we have chosen as a people the day the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.
All you statist out there had better be paying attention. The US dollar is now bouncing off support at 76. Should this level of support fail the dollar will head down toward 74 before it can find any meaningful support. Below that an the critical 72 – 70 area comes into play. The news today regarding the USD is not good…..make that very bad. The UN is calling for a new reserve currency while there are rumors that China, Russia, and some of the oil producing nations are talking about selling oil in other currencies.
In the mean time Gold shot up to a brand new high of $1043. Gold is the canary in the coal mine and has been warning for nearly a decade now that a financial storm was brewing. Gold’s move to a new high is NOT good. It foretells of the future decline in the USD. This is the great impoverishment of the American people. The value of everyone’s savings will decline as the US dollar loses value. With everything the government has done, U-3 unemployment is at 9.8% while real U-6 is at 17%. Since this recession began we have had several stimulus packages and so far none have worked. I dare say that the stimulus packages are making matters worse. So what is government’s answer to this crisis? More stimulus. The commercial real estate market is about to crater in, while the next set of mortgage resets will send forclosures to 7 million homes. INFLATION / HYPERINFLATION is NOT an economic event it IS A CURRENCY EVENT.
All you statists that support government programs are about to see an entire generation impoverished in the name of helping the poor and expanding the nation’s military presences throughout the world. This has not been brought about by capitalism, it has been brought about by a state run economy where the Federal Reserve controlled the money supply and government was free to spend money to buy votes…..money it did not have.
I do hope that kash and MattF are taking the time to review some of the videos I have posted links to in my recent messages.
The whole world has entered a phase never before seen in human history; ALL CURRENCIES ARE NOW FIAT….ever since the US dollar was separated from gold in 1971. It is no wonder that all currencies, even the stronger ones like the Aussie and New Zealand dollar have lost ground to Gold.
In technical analysis an uptrend is established by connecting the lows of each pull back. A downtrend is defined as lower highs and the line connects the tops. You will note in the following charts that gold is in powerful uptrends on all the currencies. Gold, what God provided to be used as money, is rising against every currency on the planet. The US dollar is one of the weaker currencies, which is why gold has broken out to new highs. The best case scenario for the USD is a slow decline to oblivion. A crash would be horrific on a global scale.
Here is the link to the charts on some of the major currencies and gold:
http://www.goldchartsrus.com/
The usual statist offer no response to the links I provided. No surprise here. For anyone that may actually be interested in the complete annihilation of the middle class in America, especially the elderly, I submit the following:
1. Just as I predicted, gold bottomed at the end of June – first week of July and has broken out above $1030 by trading as high as $1061 today. While this may be good for those holding gold (Silver is near $18) / silver it is not so good for those totally in US dollar assets (read: savings accounts, CDs, money markets, and US bonds)
2. The US dollar has broken once again below the all important 76 support. It’s only strength is the fact that all currencies are fiat and therefore being devalued in relation to true money, gold.
3. Unemployment is now at 9.8% (U-3) with U-6 (includes part-time workers that want full time and those that have given up looking for work) at 17%.
4. The next shoe to drop is commercial real estate. I predict that many retail stores will close after the Christmas holidays leaving many shopping centers and malls with empty stores.
5. Asset prices (like real estate) are falling and will continue to do so as 7 million more homes go into foreclosure. This will put further pressure on the already depressed real estate market.
6. While asset prices are falling the cost of living is rising and the falling dollar will insure these prices remain high. The US imports most of what we consume (energy dependence is at 70%). A lower dollar means higher prices.
7. Government spending has thus far had little impact on the economy. We are told by government and our educational system that lower spending means lower prices. This is sheer hogwash. Lower prices are the result of free market capitalism. The US has not had free market capitalism since the creation of the Fed. The slide into a government controlled economy has taken decades but it arrived in full force in 1971.
I had hoped some of you would begin to see the light but alas that has not happened. At least there is no evidence of it. In the past few weeks we have heard more and more from other world leaders the desire to replace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
Here are some copies of previous messages; most are mine one belongs to a true blue statist, Kash.
“Could the next hundred days impact the next 100 years program. Mike’s message #14 May 2, 2009. A response to kash’s insistence that the Fed is good and the gold standard is archaic. Spoken like a true statist. Response: “I am trying to get a message across to anyone that will listen. There are those that do not want to hear of the impending catastrophe. They would rather live in blissful ignorance. That of course is their prerogative.
There is very little time left. By this time next year Americans will already be suffering under an increasing burden of rising prices and an economy that has stalled with double digit unemployment. I expect that somewhere between 2011 and 2014 hyperinflation will wipe out anyone tied to dollar assets.” Notice my statements regarding the economy.
For comparison let’s look at the statist predictions regarding the role of government in providing economic growth. Kash states:
“kash’s response to “Is the Bailout immoral?” program of Feb. 16, 2009 Message #2
Well, once again my self appointed task on this site is to present the OTHER side of the story. First, before we start throwing the word “immoral” around yet again as it relates to Obama, lets remember that during the Bush-Cheney years the US national debt doubled from $5,700 billion in 2001 to $10,700 billion today. Others may recollect that Mr. Cheney said in 2001: “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” So let’s not hear any more from Republicans about deficits mattering or about ‘generational theft.’ (Mike’s note of 10/8/09: I agree with everything said to this point. The Republicans are statist as are Democrats. There is very little difference between the two parties.) …..it is simply wrong to suggest that the fiscal stimulus ‘will cripple us long-term.’ It will not. Just as the New Deal did not. At times of high unemployment tax cuts may be saved and not spent into the economy. But when the government invests the bulk of $789 billion in real, productive economic activity it will get its money back.
It works like this. Government invests in labor-intensive programs e.g. $40 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $2.9 billion to weatherize modest-income homes. $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair and $11.5 billion for mass transit and rail projects; $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers; $5 billion for public housing improvements; $6.4 billion for clean and drinking water projects.
The energy efficiency/transportation/public housing programs hire American workers – some highly skilled, some not so skilled. These programs also purchase materials – from factories. Some foreign, but mostly American.
Next, something called ‘the multiplier’ kicks in. The workers get pay checks. They use the income to pay taxes – direct to the US government. So immediately the government can use these tax revenues to fix the budget. Then workers purchase goods and services – boosting the economy. Companies hire more workers to deal with demand for materials from stimulus-sponsored programs. More employed workers equals more taxpayers.
But investing in this kind of economic activity is not the only revenue source for the US government. A massive improvement to the budget will be in savings made in unemployment payments.
If the numbers of unemployed people were cut, and if Americans had enough income not to rely on food stamps – Congress would make massive savings to the budget. If we add those savings to the tax revenue generated thanks to the ‘multiplier effect’ – the outlook is much better with the stimulus than without it. (Mike’s comment as of 10/8/09: Notice that government promised that without a stimulus we would get 8.1% unemployment. Thus far WITH government stimulus unemployment is 9.8% and now predicted to peak closer to 11%. So how can it be that all the stimulus has not FIXED the problem. Reason- It was debt and over spending that got us into this mess and more debt and spending will NOT get us out. You do not spend your way out of a depression you must produce your way out of it. Yet government policies (read” over regulations and taxes) discourage the very investments in production we need to generate economic growth. Witness the economic growth in productive nations.)
Going further:
Same program, with Mike’s response #3
……. Even if the stimulus were to create several million jobs, which I doubt it will, that will not add to our economic growth. Jobs do not create wealth, producing goods that people want to buy creates wealth. In the old Soviet Union, and many Communist countries today (China is totalitarian but they have adopted free market capitalism) everyone is guaranteed a job and yet the economically these nations are very weak with low standards of living.
Over the next few years the American people will suffer and suffer bitterly. We have adopted the Traditions of Men in our monetary system, relied on government for our well being and economic growth, and almost totally abandoned God. It is time Christians start reading and understanding what the Bible says about economics. We have bought into a demonic system, and when the veil of that system is lifted, we will finally see the folly of the path we allowed our nation to take.
How we deal with the crisis will determine for generations, how much freedom and prosperity our children and grandchildren experience in the land their forefathers conquered.
Mike’s next message #8 in response to Kash’s unwillingness to see the folly of her position that supports government’s interference in the economy, and her undying support of the Federal Reserve.
”
I’ll tell you what, when hyperinflation destroys this economy and the middle class is wiped out financially, we can resume this conversation. This is nothing more than the continuation of the discussion regarding fiat currency back when Doug Tjaden was on WTRU.
I hate to be so blunt…..that’s not true, I love being blunt; but the ignorance and refusal to see what is taking place before your very eyes is astounding.
Of course the debt has been rising, it must rise in light of the monetary system we have adopted. Without debt it dies and so does the economy. Reality will strike deep into the hearts of every American as the nation is impoverished by a collapsing dollar.
So far, between the bailouts and the stimulus, we could very well add an additional $9.7 trillion added to the debt. That debt is being financed through short term treasuries. Do you not understand the significance of this type of financing. It is equivalent to an adjustable rate mortgage. As interest rates rise, which they are sure to do when the government issues the flood of bonds to finance said debt, the tax revenues will not be able to even pay the interest on that massive debt.
What got us into the fix we are in is too much spending based on too much debt. So what is the government solution? More debt and more spending. All of it defies logic. We are depending on the very people that created the problem to get us out. That is like asking the neighborhood arsonist to help put out the fire he started.
I’m done with this discussion. The Bible is suppose to guide Christians in their world view, but when I support my opinion with Bible passages all I get is secular pap.
Kash the stimulus package grows the size of government. Socialist states have huge government bureaucracies. As government spending grows so does the government. Maybe you will change your mind when you see your friends, children and grandchildren enslaved by the very government you support. It won’t be the Democrats or Republicans that enslave you and your loved ones, it will be the bankers and a handful of wealthy elites. Socialism is not equality for all, it is the rule by a wealthy few.
Let me repeat, this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a free people vs. and enslaved people issue. The Social Welfare state offers much, but in providing the utopia it promises, it must take more than it gives. The only solution is a sound monetary system based on a precious metal standard. If you cannot understand the concept then I suggest you read up on what God has to say about it.
Within the next 3 to 5 years, the US will go through a gut wrenching depression that has an element of inflation with it.
So there you have it. The depression is deepening just as I predicted. Kash, who believes in Keynesian economics as do all statist, provided a reasoned argument favoring government action but her position was fatally flawed. Keynesian economics is being discredited as I write this message. Over the next 5 years it will be seen as flat earth of economics. THE US DOLLAR IS BARELY HOLDING ON TO 76, TRADING AT 75.90. GOLD TAGGED $1061 AND HAS PULLED BACK A BIT TO $1053. The handwriting is on the wall. If you want to see some predictions made on TTL, just go to the show featuring Doug Tjaden. Every Christian and non-Christian should visit his site, http://www.traditionsofmen.org. Here is the link to the TTL show featuring Doug. http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/01/27/fools-gold-global-economics-from-a-biblical-worldview/#comments This show aired in late January 2009.
I will not post another message on this blog unless there is a question regarding my statements. I will keep all my brothers and sisters in my prayers….I pray that they should see the light and protect themselves. The time is at hand.