The government exists to reward those who do good and punish those who do evil (Rom.13:3-4). Because of this, I think that the government must set and enforce rules and limits which deter people from using their wealth in sinful ways, and they should set rules and limits (and give incentives) that encourage good use of wealth.
Although I agree with you on the purpose of government, can you please explain to me how punishing evil and rewarding good has anything to do with government's interference with personal wealth?
How does punishing evil and rewarding good relate to government "interference" with personal wealth?
If the way you use your personal wealth is a moral issue (i.e.: it can be good or evil) then the government should set rules and limits and incentives to punish evil use of wealth and reward good use of wealth.
People should not be rewarded by the government for hording too much money or for using their money to create sinful enterprises. They should be discouraged from such activity (and punished in some cases). Drug-dealing-organizations, prostitution rings, gambling casinos, abortion clinics – these are examples of sinful enterprises. They should not be permitted to prosper as much as they want.
But people should be rewarded (encouraged) by the government for giving to those in need and for using their money to create good enterprises (tax breaks for giving to good charities, special funding for schools and hospitals, etc.)
In one sense I agree with you...the list of things you chose are evil, but I disagree that it is a money issue. You make laws making prostitution and abortion illegal. Then the people can't spend their money in those ways. I also agree in giving tax exemptions for using your money in helping others.
However, money in and of itself is not evil. If someone chooses to "hoard" it for an emergency or for their retirement, they should not be punished. Biblically it is correct to save your money and have it to pass down to your children as an inheritance. It is sinful to be in debt to anyone.
Proverbs 6:6-8; “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest.”
Proverbs 21:20 “There is desirable treasure, and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man squanders it.”
1 Timothy 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
I could go on and on...
People should not be punished for earning money. People SHOULD be punished for foolishly squandering that money away. For going into debt. For spending more than they make and expecting others to make up the difference. For coveting what they cannot afford.
My opinion is that of the article that I posted in my earlier comment. I would rather have individuals make choices rather than have the government set the lines because I feel the government is corrupt. Yes we are sinful and make bad choices, but I feel that because we are sinful, we do not want to lose what we have. People use the government as a crutch and don't realize that the money the government is using (in unwise ways) is their money.
For example, my father in law is a VERY Godly man. He is a pastor. He also owns his own business licensing people to do adult developmentally disabled foster care...and makes WAY more money than he knows what to do with. He tithes 30%+ of his income, and gives $10,000 a month towards missions. He also gives his cars away to people in need, helps out my husband's business when times are slow and helps out people in the church whenever they need it. He is currently in India for 3 weeks building churches (in Mumbai where they bombed two days before he left). He also puts away a good chunk of his income towards savings for his retirement. God continues to bless him with more and more money.
He is almost forced to give away 70% of his income because the government would take his money to use towards things he is AGAINST...such as funding for Planned Parenthood. The government does NOT know the best place to put the money God has given him...and God continually blesses him in abundance because he has faithfully shown throughout the years that he will give it back to be used by Him.
When the government is involved it actually serves to take money AWAY from those who would use it to help others. The government uses it towards funding programs that are ungodly...such as planned parenthood and welfare (there I said it!!!)
The reason welfare is ungodly is because it is NOT the job of the government, but the job of the church. The church has become lazy and allowed the government to take over and RUIN what should be a blessing to believers--the helping out of those in need. Instead, the money is being used in many instances to keep people from working and to fund laziness.
It should be a blessing to give. And research has shown that those who believe that it is not the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth give WAY more than those who believe it is the government's responsibility.
One of my favorite quotes by Abraham Lincoln is "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
I think the government has become WAY too involved in our lives and has allowed people to become lazy and uneducated in the basic tenets of economics. In its quest to "help" people, it is actually serving to make us dependent on it for survival. We are called to be dependent on God not on man. The more we can get the government out of our lives, the better we can focus on what God wants for our lives. The government does not have God's best interest at heart, they have their own selfish self-interest at heart.
When the government becomes involved, they end up hurting those that are trying to be self-sufficient and not be a drain on society. For example...my family. My husband is a small business owner of an electrical contracting company. His business has made enough over this last year that under our newly elected president, we would be considered "wealthy" and be overly taxed...yet there were three months this year where my husband didn't take a pay check so that he could make sure he was able to pay his employees. When Obama's tax increase happens to our "wealthy business", my husband's business will go under because the "profit" that Obama sees goes to making sure we can buy materials and pay our employees throughout the year--even in months when we make no income because business is slow. He would take that "profit" and redistribute it--and my husband would have to fire his employees because he could no longer afford to pay them when there is no work. That is just one company. My husband's company is not alone. When the government sticks its nose into small businesses (the backbone of the free market), the unemployment rate sky rockets and the economy slows WAY down. That's what has happened in the past, and that is what we get to look forward to in the future.
HM- I'm a little confused and feel free to tell me to mind my own business! As far as I understand it, Obama will tax families that make over 250,000 a year, not businesses. From what I can tell, he wants to give tax cuts to small businesses, specifically payroll tax. I don't understand much about US taxes or payroll taxes in either country so maybe this isn't helpful, but if your husband is sometimes not taking home a salary (which I'm sure his employees love you guys for, you sound like great employers) then, unless his salary is very large, maybe it won't be a problem for you guys.
That was a very interesting article. Thanks for stating what you thought of it so I knew how to read it! :) It was really surprising to me that he stated that many christians don't think about economic issues. In my head, it's one of the biggest issues in regards to living out my faith that I can think of! But then again, I tend to be very hung up on social justice issues often to my own detrament! :) I agree with a lot of the article, especially how capitalism is safer because the economic power is more diversified and not in the hands of a few people. I'm not sure I agree with his assumptions that because we are made in the image of God that directly means that we should be allowed private property, or that the private property must be in every aspect of life. I also do not agree with his (in my perception) assumption that all socialism must emulate Marxism. I see socialism as an idea under construction, that it has changed over the years. I am certainly not a Marxist, but I still consider myself a socialist (with a small 's' for a reason.)
I think a big difference between the States and Canada is what we perceive the government doing with our tax money. Here churches are small and there is no way we could support a welfare system on our own. Our church sponsered a refugee family a few years ago and that was very straining. More importantly, the government funds most of our charitable organizations- and to a substantial amount (and without hirering qualifiers.) So I know that the small amount of taxes that we pay, (which wouldn't cover my health care bills anyways) goes to places like the Salvation Army shelter, food programs in schools, daycare spaces so teen moms can go to school, and foriegn aid.
Again with the prying- 70%? That's a lot! Where does all that go? - state, fed, county? How do your taxes get broken up? Do you have fees and such for libraries etc on top of your taxes? As far as we can figure it out, our wealthiest pay somewhere around 50% when everything is added up.
Clarification: I do not consider saving money to be "hording," especially saving money for your children. I agree that the government should encourage saving money, not discourage it.
All I was trying to say was that the government should not "reward people for hording their money...". (For example: I don't think it should give extra hand-outs or extra-tax breaks to richer individuals compared to poorer individuals). (Company tax is different than individual tax in my mind - I don't know much about how companies are taxed.)
By "rewarding hording" I was thinking of the opposite of "rewarding giving to charity".
I think I basically agree with the article about capitalism. However, I don't know if I would say that "I believe in capitalism" or "I believe in socialism." I think we are just called to live with whatever system we have and make the most of it. The government has the right to demand taxes. It has the basic mandate to "reward good and punish evil". Beyond that, however, I think there is room for many different forms of government or economic systems.
Wow 50%!!! That is a lot! I'm sorry I confused you Kimberly...I was exaggerating sarcastically...I should have put a smiley face :-D. I just meant that he has to give away a lot of money because he knows better where to put it than the government (although he really does give 30% tithe and an additional 10K a month to missions). I don't know how much he actually makes, just that he makes more than he knows what to do with and I overheard him tell my husband that he wanted to give him as much money as he needed to keep his business going because he could write it off as an investment company, otherwise the taxes he is going to have to pay this year are astronomical....but no where near 50%! I can't imagine that!!! What's the point of working if you have to give it all away!
As far as taxing small businesses, I am getting that information from my husband. I thought it was personal wealth as well (which I still think is wrong), but he swears that he included small businesses in it. To be honest, I don't know much about how the taxes work on his business either so I'm getting all that second hand. However, what I stated about higher taxes still holds true--higher taxes means less jobs...basic economics. And my husband and his partner only take $100 more a week than their employees...when they take a check...so we wouldn't currently personally be considered "wealthy"...
Chris-I agree with you...no system is perfect. Obviously I lean more towards capitalism though :-D. As I've stated on some of Kimberly's other questions, we live in a sin-cursed world so nothing here is going to be perfect. And I agree...we just have to do the best with what we're given.
As far as "I don't think it should give extra hand-outs or extra-tax breaks to richer individuals compared to poorer individuals"...I don't think they do that much. Those that make a higher income, get taxed at a higher level. They currently give tax breaks to companies, but like I argued earlier, I think that is just good economics. But personally wealthy people have to buy property or put their money elsewhere to avoid extra taxes.
Regardless, if someone earned that money through hard work or intelligent financial decisions, they should have the right to determine what to do with it. The line of who should be considered wealthy could be drawn at many different levels depending on who you ask. I don't want the government deciding what that level is.
I personally don't think someone making $250,000 a year is "wealthy"...yes they make a good living, but I wouldn't consider it wealthy. However, someone making $25,000 a year would think someone making $100K would be wealthy. So it all depends on who you ask...and the cost of living in the part of the country you live in. I might be wrong, but I hear that renting a small apartment in NYC, costs as much as my monthly mortgage. So those people must make quite a bit of money just to survive. Should they be taxed higher because their jobs happen to be in one of the most inflated cities in the country? How would they afford to live? Someone making 25K in Des Moines, Iowa, would be equivalent of someone making 100K in NYC expenditure wise. See the problem?
The rest of that really good quote by President Lincoln that I quoted earlier goes:
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
So much to comment on! This is fabulous! (and giving me something to think about on a wierd health day- Thank you!)
What do I affirm from socialism? It comes down to what I feel should be basic human rights. I believe that God created each and every human being as equal to everyone else. Therefore, simply because I live in Canada, I am no more worthy of life than someone in Africa. Therefore, I believe that everyone, in my country as well as the planet, deserves enough food to eat, clean water, health care, and education. I really don't care what kind of government does these things, but the only countries I've seen that have been close to accomplishing this are the northern European countries, hense my socialist leanings. I'm not sure Capitalism could ever accomplish it because it seems to require that workers are paid less (whether inside the actual country or outsourced) in order to create competative products.
I really don't agree that we simply have to live with what we are given. In that case, children would still be working in coal mines. Yes, there is a matter of being satisfied with your lot in life and that's probably what you guys were saying, but I'm just going to add that I think there is definitely a place for political activism and charity work amoung Christians.
I am very well aware of the fact that had I been born poor in many areas of the world, I would not be alive today. No possible way. And even if I had survived, neither of our children would have. This colours all of my thinking in terms of economic theory and social justice issues. Just so you know where I'm coming from! :)
Yup, 50% is a lot, but that is only the most wealthy that pay that much. We're somewhere around 40% which includes everything from sales tax to our fed and prov. taxes and our city and property taxes. This covers all pre-university education (pre-school is covered in our area) and heavily subsidises college and university. It covers all health care except dental, eyes, non-prescriptive, and prescription medicine up to a point. It also covers libraries and all our city services (except gyms and pools.) We also added unemployment insurance and the Canada pension plan into our calculations because they also come off the paycheque. Perhaps if I didn't have a university education (which has come in oh so handy! :) ) or use the health care system so frequently (just this weekend I used around $1000,) or if Josh hadn't taken 5 months of parental leave after Katie was born, I wouldn't feel like a got my money's worth out of the deal, but in our case, we certainly have been a net drain on the system! :)
We certianly could talk about the welfare system. I had posted a question about food stamps a long time ago with no takers. I'll see if I can think up a good question to get us started. Let me know if you (any/either of you) come up with one and I'll post it.
Kimberly, I agree that we are created equally and because we are created in God's image, we need to help each other and honor that. But again, I feel that is the church's responsibility...not government's. And by "church", I mean the body of Christ, not individual churches--although that is a basis from where to start.
However, you brought up two entirely different problems. You cannot equate the poor in places like America and Canada to the poor in places like Africa. The scale is completely different and we cannot even begin to address the issues that the poor in 3rd world countries are dealing with. We need to be thankful every day that God placed us where He did and do our best to help financially and physically where we can. For example, my sister in law is in the process of adopting orphans from these countries--so believe me, we feel the plight of these countries and are doing what little we can to help. (Side note...it costs a LOT of money to adopt an international child and most of that money does not go to the children, but to the CORRUPT government...but I digress...)
Again I will say that we live in a sin-cursed world. We need to pray for our brothers and sisters around the world, but there will be pain and suffering until Christ returns. It is a sad fact of life in a world of sinners.
But we are not a one-world government. We are individual nations. So we must deal with what's best for our nations...and answer your hypothetical questions as best we can :-D.
The poorest person in America could have a roof over their head and food if they chose to do so--they cannot be equated to someone in a 3rd world country. People who are willing to work hard here CAN make a difference in their lives...I have seen it happen over and over again--including my own life.
We have mental institutions for those who are insane, foster care and group homes for the mentally disabled, group homes for those wanting to get back on their feet, homeless shelters and programs galore to help those who need help. But they have to actually work towards that help--which is only right.
We have public education. We have headstart (preschool for poor kids). We have government funded day cares. We have gobs and gobs of grants out there free for the taking for anyone who knows how to go to the public library to look. If I wasn't so lazy, I could have had my entire college paid for by grants, but I took the "easy" way out and got financial aid.
Oh and don't forget the new fad... if your bills become too much--just declare bankruptcy and all will be forgiven in 7 years...my sister did it THREE times! (my sister happens to be a democrat...just pointing out that we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues...)
I will not say our health insurance system is perfect, but I WILL say it is better than Canada's. That's why people in Canada come to America to get treated! I'm glad that it has worked for you personally, but I'm not convinced that government funded universal healthcare is a good thing in general. Doctors can be forced to go on vacation and you are left waiting for critical results for weeks (a friend had to wait 3 weeks to know if she had kidney failure or not!)...not to mention ridiculous long wait times in the ER! (your own blog)
In America, you get customer service. The doctor has to treat you no matter what. The wait time in the ER is at MOST an hour...and that is long. I can call my doctor up anytime and get in the same day for treatment and I get my results back within 48 hours--and that's a long time.
We have government funded health programs too--my foster kids are on it right now. Those below the poverty line (which is fairly high) only have to fill out an application and they can be on it. There are free clinics all over the country for people who can't afford health insurance so they can get vaccines and basic treatment. The health "crisis" is not THAT bad--it is bad, but it has also been blown a little out of proportion.
I think the solution to high health prices is regulating the insurance companies and stopping frivolous health lawsuits which cause doctor's to have to charge more to pay for malpractice insurance, etc. not having the government take it over. I think they should give incentives to those who are proactive on their healthcare-- lower insurance for those who go to their annual visits, live healthier lifestyles, etc. I think something needs to be done, but universal healthcare only works in a socialist economy...and we're not there...yet.
But I guess that's why I'm a capitalist. I think that people need to take responsibility for their life...for what they've been given. That is something you can do in America. You can't do that in Africa and Mexico and I feel sorry for those people...but they have a CORRUPT GOVERNMENT! That didn't happen overnight. I don't trust government!
When people take responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming the government for problems and start looking for solutions themselves, they are happier, they are more fulfilled, and they prosper. The best programs out there are the ones that teach people how to do things themselves--give them hope.
When people start blaming the government or someone else for their problems, when they sit back and get handouts, they spiral downward. It's happened time and time again, and it is happening right now in America and it makes me sick.
I will say that all systems have their flaws and although the socialist system does take care of people's needs, I still think it breeds laziness.
Here was a blog I read a little while back about early socialism in America:
And my response to the lower wages thing... get a new job--or be like my husband and (millions of other Americans) and start your own business (there are gobs and gobs of grants out there for that too!)--of course you'll get taxed out of your mind....
I love that you write a lot! But that is too much for me to try to reply to in any coherent manner right now! :) I'll try to write some tonight. You brought up some excellent points.
Kim, you say: "I believe that everyone... deserves enough food to eat, clean water, health care, and education. I really don't care what kind of government does these things, but the only countries I've seen that have been close to accomplishing this are the northern European countries..."
Really? Doesn't almost everyone in North America and the Western World have enough access to food, water and education?
Maybe the way of providing health care is the basic difference between Western nations.
I don't know about the health care system in the USA. How many people have no basic health care services?
While many people in North America have enough water, I would argue that food and especially education are lacking for many people. Wpg Harvest serves thousands and thousands of people. I will not be satisfied until there is no need for food banks. Education is another major issue. Here it almost totally depends on the wealth of your parents and your upbringing as to whether you will go to college. In some cases, as long as there has been a lot of family support or determination, the poor can get student loans. However, there is a good section of people who's parents are too poor (or refuse) to help, but yet they can't qualify for either student loans or grants. I would rather see a system such as German has, where as long as you pass requirements, university is paid for by the government, (as are all colleges and trade schools etc.) Certainly that system also has problems, but that is the direction I would like to see us go.
According to wikipedia definitions, I would fall into the "social democrat" area. Our Premier described it as "mixed economy, strong role of the public sector." Man! I sound like I'm a government lacky which is so totally not the case, I just happen to agree with the base principals of the party that we happen to have in power here in Manitoba! :)
HM- Alright, time for a reply! I will try to comment on everything you wrote but we’ll see how long I last! I’ve been roaming in internet land for the last hour after checking out that blog post link. I’ll start with that while it’s fresh in my brain and I still have pages open. I really didn’t know anything about the Jamestown settlement so I decided to educate myself! It seemed odd to me that the settlers would have just allowed themselves to perish because they didn’t feel like working- that goes against human nature- we all want to survive- otherwise wars would be massive suicides. Anyways, what I learned was that the Starving Time had little to do with the organizational structure of the settlement, except for the complete lack of planning for emergencies. The settlers had never planned to support themselves through agriculture. Likely they all had gardens, but agriculture on a large scale was not planned until after the Starving Time occurred (hence breaking up the land into plots at that point.) I was wondering why the settlements were so dependent on the arrival of English ships- that didn’t seem to make logical sense to me given all the naval wars and weather challenges, but then I don’t think they were very good planners! They had planned to trade with local native tribes for the majority of their food, thus making them dependent on the arrival of ships to supply them with trade goods. Perhaps this would have worked had they attempted to play nice with their neighbours. Relations disintegrated until in 1609, the chief of the Pohwattan Confederacy (the tribes around the settlement had joined together-mainly through warfare) refused to trade with them, effectively putting the settlement under siege. To make matters worse, a ship did arrive but with more settlers and no food. Any attempts at farming by the settlers would also have been difficult at this time as the area was experiencing a flood, and the majority of the settlers had little to no agricultural experience. So yeah, not sure what it says about collective organizational strategy or the basic tenants of socialism (taking care that everyone has enough) but instead (I think) shows that illegal immigrants should bring what they need to the new country!
Anyways,
Helping each other as church’s responsibility. Yes! But (in my head) also the governments’. Christians simply could not do it all in Canada- there are not enough of us! I’m very glad that the government gives to the Christian organizations that I also try to support. Often when World Vision contacts us about this emergency or that, the government is matching donations or paying for transportation costs or something, as well as companies joining in as well. Yes, possibly if we paid less tax, we would have more money to donate more, however, this way everyone is “forced” to donate, not just the religious. It also makes it much more efficient (at least we in Canada don’t feel that everything our government touches goes to crap) and allows the different charities to dialogue with the government as to their needs.
Oh man! I am such a wimp! Our cat just caught a mouse and besides the fact that I am grossed out and frustrated that we had a mouse get into the house, now Josh has to kill it since the cat was just playing. Eww! Eww! Gross! Gross! I love my husband!
Ok,
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was equating poor people in other places to poor in North America. Totally not the same thing. At all. In any way. However, I do think that we have a responsibility to both groups. Certainly some people are lazy, but I don’t believe that the majority of North American poor are. I added another post with a link that pretty much describes what I feel is the major problem with how we treat the poor in Canada. There’s no reason why we couldn’t get everyone who wanted a roof over their head into appropriate accommodations for their needs. The people that don’t want help will always be there, but there are many, many, many (at least here) that have mental health issues that require help. Day care is so expensive that single parents are often reduced to poverty. There’s no reason why any child born in Canada shouldn’t be able to live a decent life because of their parent’s financial situation (at least as much as is possible.) I’m not talking about middle class “poor” making a good living (assumption here to your reference of your own life, perhaps I’m mistaken) but the people who can’t pay the rent and can’t apply for a job or a better job because, once homeless, they don’t have a fixed address or phone number. I’m talking only about the people dying on the streets and the families who don’t have enough to both eat and heat their homes (big problem here in middle of winter, when heating bills in the only affordable housing can reach $400 per month.) In terms of international poverty, I am appalled at the tiny amount of aid that is given by our governments. Certainly it’s better than no aid, but it’s nowhere near what we could be doing. Not that everywhere should be like North America, I don’t think many places would want all the trappings of our consumerist lifestyles, but people deserve to see their children grow up without the threat of starvation or easily combated disease. In a world where we spend millions and millions of dollars figuring out how to kill each other, I think we can afford to figure out how to keep people alive.
Interestingly in Canada, we do not have a lot of grants for university. If you want to be a doctor, you can apply to a rural town to support you and then work for them (paid) for several years. But other than that, most of the grants are for masters and doctoral studies. Josh had his first year paid for in scholarships (but he’s massively smart) and parts of his later years. I’m not sure why there is such a difference, maybe simply a population issue. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think that there are a lot of grants for starting up your own business. I’ve never heard of any. Loans, yes (well, or used to be before the financial meltdown!) and lots of tax cuts, but grants, I don’t think so (again here in Manitoba.) In response to the idea of getting a new job or starting one’s own business to combat the problem of low wages, I’m not sure that would work if you didn’t have a good support system behind you in the form of family or grants. The single parent who didn’t happen to get to go to university and is already working two minimum wage jobs often can’t do any more physically. There is no time for schooling or even for looking for other work. “The pursuit of happiness” movie rubbed me totally the wrong way- putting your kid out on the street because you want to train for a higher paying job. No way! Get a job, any job and feed your kid! Anyways, I’m also of the opinion that minimum wage should be a living wage so that people are able to survive with one full time job. (I’m also a believer that price controls on milk and bread are a good thing when coupled with funding for diary and grain farmers.)
Do a lot of people declare bankruptcy in the States? I don’t mean just now with the financial crisis, but in general? I’ve only ever heard of one person in my entire life and that was the friend of a friend’s parents.
Yes, I will definitely agree that your health care system is faster. We do not have enough doctors! Or nurses and lab techs, but the major problem is doctors. There has been a massive problem with health professionals seeing that the grass (wages and weather) is nicer on the other side of the border. Not that we can complain. Our government actively advertises to fill the vacancies with South African doctors! I am NOT in favour of that! Talk about intellectual poaching from a country that could, instead, use our help! Our health care system has not worked for me, partly because I’m only learning now how to be a good (and annoying) patient, but also because I have a difficult disease and there are no specialists in that field in our province (basically because they haven’t decided where to put CFS and so few doctors study it! Oh the joys!) My best shot in the States would be the Mayo Clinic, but very little research has been done on this in the States. England has done the greatest majority of research on the topic because there was actually a fatality directly linked to CFS there several years ago. But anyways, yes, your system is much faster, likely because of the numbers of health care providers and the grouping of your population. There are not a lot of areas in the lower 48 where you’d have to travel 8 hours (or worse) to see a doctor. Yes, we had a ridiculously long wait in the ER but that is slowly being worked on. I’m going to be nosy and ask where your friend lives..? That is absolutely horrible that she had to wait that long for such an important test! That should totally not have happened! Generally, my experience has been similar to yours in terms of doctor’s customer service and test results. On another health care note, Josh was doing some research and found a stat that said that the American government covers 44% of overall health care costs while the Canadian government covers 70%. When you combine that with the per capita expenditures on health care ($5711 in the US, and $2669 in Canada), the US government spends significantly more per person on health care than Canada does, and yet our life expectancy is higher, and infant mortality is lower. I’m not sure what that says or means, I just found that interesting.
3rd page- my response is now longer than your comment so you don’t have to feel bad about writing for a long time!
I think the incentives idea is very interesting and could certainly be an idea in a capitalist system, but I’m not sure how it would work. Do they trust that because you check off “non-smoker” that you really don’t? And what happens if you just smoke once? That is (or so I’ve heard) enough to increase your risk of lung cancer.
I don’t think I’m taking your next paragraph right. Are you blaming the people of those countries/areas for their corrupt governments? I tend to blame the whole situation of imperialist powers controlling those areas and then governments falling to revolutionary forces. When there is a total collapse of a society’s institutions, there is going to be years and years of chaos- especially when the new leaders are propped up by foreign entities who want access to the countries natural resources.
Totally agree with your next paragraph. Welfare systems only work if job training is a key ingredient. Don’t totally agree with the next, at least in international poverty. I think the people of Zimbabwe are totally justified in blaming their government for a good portion of their problems! Hand-out is an interesting word. It’s not a word that is often used, at least around here. We tend to talk more about people being “supported” which often means low-income housing (not free,) job training and financial counselling, and welfare to cover groceries and rent while training is occurring (unless you’re a single parent and then sometimes it means allowing you to stay home with your kids if you’re not healthy enough to work and do childcare at the same time.) Hand-out sounds like there aren’t strings attached. Like money given to a person you meet on the street. Am I getting that right? Is that the idea? I could see then that you would feel that socialism, and even social democracy, would breed laziness. That would make sense. My view is totally different. I see social centered thought like a construction crew. We all work (our butts off) as much as we are able and in the way that we can most utilize our own individual talents for the betterment of our collective society.
Ok, I’m done now. I’ll understand if it takes you a while to reply, but I can’t wait to hear what you have to say! (Chris you’re very welcome to comment on this too even though it is addressed to Honormommy. And feel free to come over if you’re bored the next few days- we are on vacation!)
Well, first I would like to say that I agree with you that a socialist society is the best society IF we had perfect leaders…we don’t and we won’t until Christ returns.
As far as Jamestown goes, it was still a more socialist society than a capitalist society. TRUE capitalist societies depend on themselves, not others. Again I will state that I don’t think America is still a true capitalist society. But I agree most with the IDEALS of a capitalist society (until Christ returns).
Oh and I’m sure you were just joking, but I take issue with the statement of: “but instead (I think) shows that illegal immigrants should bring what they need to the new country!” The settlers were not “illegal immigrants”. Every country in Europe was taken over by conquerors, and no one complains about that. India, South Africa, Australia… but people only talk about the poor Native Americans who got their land taken from them. Before Americans came here, many tribes fought over land and “conquered” other tribes—in different ways, but it was still brutal. I don’t feel bad for being a conquering nation any more than the Romans felt bad for conquering all the lands they conquered. In fact, in many ways, we were “nicer” than the Romans—we at least gave them some land for them to keep as their own and they are allowed to live by their own laws…that was more than the Romans did. I will agree that conquering the Native Americans wasn’t the “right” thing to do, but what’s done is done. And again, WE LIVE IN A SIN-CURSED WORLD…natural man if left to himself is evil—he doesn’t know HOW to do good. The Bible says any good we do outside of Christ is as filthy rags.
But they were still different than illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are breaking MANY laws in entering our country. There are thousands of immigrants every year who go through the legal routes to become productive citizens. The illegal immigrants often are criminals in their own countries and come here to continue their crime sprees. In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegals. At least 83% of arrest warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegals. The number climbs to 86% for Albuquerque. The most wanted lists for each of these cities is comprised of at least 75% illegal aliens. Those who aren’t criminals are also a drain on our society as they take in our services without paying the taxes for them. They are part of the reason our healthcare is so expensive—illegals use the ER like their own personal doctor’s office. And that’s just one of many examples.
But I digress…
“Certainly some people are lazy, but I don’t believe that the majority of North American poor are.” I didn’t mean that I felt all of the poor in America were lazy. I feel that a socialist society makes people lazy because they wait for someone to do for them what they could do themselves. And I feel that the programs that we currently have also MAKE people lazy by not teaching them how to do for themselves. I think that instead of just giving people handouts, they should require them to take basic economic and budgeting classes (and be compensated for their time). I also feel that if they are taking our money, they should be required to give receipts for how they are spending it.
As far as the personal poverty in my own life, I was not speaking of myself personally (although we went from below the poverty level to middle middle class since we’ve been married), but rather, my father. He was the oldest of six children. They grew up in a 500 sq foot home that was filthy and crawling with cockroaches. My grandfather was an abusive alcoholic on disability and didn’t work. My grandmother worked 3 different waitressing jobs to support the family. 4 of his siblings still live in those kinds of conditions. In high school my dad asked if he could live with one of his friends in kind of a foster care situation since his parents were moving. They agreed. My dad then learned the value of hardwork and how to be responsible with the money he earned. He went into the military and learned trade skills. He then went on to work in the heating and cooling business. Because of his hard work and responsibility (my dad never missed a day of work…ever), after I went off to college, he was rewarded with becoming a manager of a special unit that traveled the country installing air conditioning units into MRIs—basically his dream job.
As far as bankruptcy goes, I know of three people that are close enough to have told me about it (my sister, a friend of my husband’s and my brother-in-law’s sister) …I probably know more. I don’t know how many of my extended family members have declared bankruptcy—they wouldn’t tell me if they did.
I know I sound cynical and of course I don’t think it’s the case with everyone, but I have known too many people personally who take advantage of the system for me to think the programs we have are set up appropriately. For example, a friend of mine does foster care as well. The children she has’ biological parents had government funded budgeting for electricity to run their air conditioning (in AZ it is as necessary for air conditioning in the summer as heat in the winter in Canada). It is prorated and they only have a certain amount per month. They turned off their air conditioning so that they had enough electricity to play video games. The people in the low rent housing behind my house growing up drove nicer cars than we did. My dad’s brother purposefully didn’t work enough during the year so that he could still get food stamps—yet with his 6 kids, he got a huge tax refund each year. He spent that on motorcycles and entertainment systems.
Like I said, we have program after program for people who want it. I watched that Pursuit of Happyness also and both my husband and I were horrified by what he did. My husband has “lowered” himself to working in grocery stores stocking shelves when we didn’t have enough to survive—highschoolers do it! There are jobs out there and if people were taught how to budget, they could survive and raise a family on minimum wage.
And there are many programs out there for single mothers. They get more tax breaks, have help for daycare, etc. In fact, I also know people who choose not to get married because it would actually cost them more money to raise their kids—that is messed up! But again…sin…
But like I said, people are not taught HOW to take care of themselves. Many of the extreme poverty in our country come from families in extreme poverty, who came from families in extreme poverty, etc. The cycle has not been broken because instead of teaching them how to take care of themselves, they are teaching them to become reliable on the government to take care of them. Those that are in extreme poverty can pretty much go to college for free (LOTS AND LOTS of grants for people in extended poverty), yet they don’t because no one has given them any hope that they CAN do better. My dad’s favorite saying is “give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”
“In a world where we spend millions and millions of dollars figuring out how to kill each other, I think we can afford to figure out how to keep people alive.” We spend MORE money on helping people each year than ‘figuring out how to kill each other’ (even the military). But again…SIN.
Google “small business bureau” and you will find tons of information about how to start up your own business and how to get grants. There are also tons of books in the library. When my husband started his company, he met with a counselor from the SBB for free who gave him advice and helped him make a proposal and everything else he needed to get started. The help is out there; people just need to be taught where to look.
I’m not sure what part of Canada Shirley lives in…she is an online friend who had asked us to pray for her.
”I think the incentives idea is very interesting and could certainly be an idea in a capitalist system, but I’m not sure how it would work. Do they trust that because you check off “non-smoker” that you really don’t?” They actually already have programs set up through corporations that do this. It is like getting life insurance. You go in and get a blood test done—they can tell if you are a smoker. In general though people put money into tax deductible/tax free health savings accounts and only get insurance for the amount that they need (they have 3 or 4 different levels to choose from). Of course I don’t know all the details and I don’t know how they would do it nationally, but I think it is important for people to take responsibility for their health (as much as possible) as well as the other aspects of their life.
”I don’t think I’m taking your next paragraph right. Are you blaming the people of those countries/areas for their corrupt governments?” OF COURSE NOT!!! That is my point. The socialist GOVERNMENTs are corrupt. Much of the money that gets sent there for aid is kept by the government. Here is an interesting article I found: http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/Betrayal.asp The people in those countries are left to the mercy of a corrupt government and do not have the opportunity to do anything else.
“I see social centered thought like a construction crew. We all work (our butts off) as much as we are able and in the way that we can most utilize our own individual talents for the betterment of our collective society.” Yes, that is the IDEAL view of socialism. Unfortunately socialism in practice does not work that way again due to sinful man.
It seems to me that neither HM nor Kim are extreme capitalist or extreme socialist. Both of you seem to agree that it is good for the government to provide some basic funding of social programs/assistance for society (for those who are in most severe need/poverty). HM seems to think there is already more than enough (in the US), Kim seems to think there is not enough (in Canada). HM is concerned about the corruption of people in government and the way government programs tend to encourage laziness and other nonChristian values. Kim is concerned about the greed and carelessness of individuals and the private sector, if government does not play a stronger role. Am I understanding both of you correctly?
I'm not sure that I'm particularily concerned about the greed and carelessness of the private sector- if Christians really gave and we comprised 90% of the population, perhaps I wouldn't feel that government would need to step in! But yes, close enough. :)
I think that the systems are also very different between the two countries, or at least the way we view our systems. I would not support the idea of a welfare system without strings attached. However I have seen people move from the disasterous situations that landed them in welfare, to being able to make their own way through education and job training.
I also think there is a fundamental difference in how we view natural man. Yes we live in a sin-cursed world. Nothing that we can do is good enough for God. However, many non-Christians I know are prefectly lovely people. We have muslim and jewish organizations (and others) that do great work. I feel confident in their ability to do good work in the world and be responsible leaders. I do not feel the government must be corrupt. I'm not a fan of Harper but I don't think that the entire Conservative party is corrupt, or that everything they do is going to fail. So.. while I agree that the world won't be completely peaceful until Christ comes, I feel that we can work towards good governence and that good working socialist democracies are possible even without perfect leaders.
Yes people complain all the time about what happened in India, South Africa and Australia. People don't tend to complain about Europe because it was a REALLY long time ago, but you could probably still find people cursing the Vikings or the Huns! :) Um..keeping land and laws was exactly what the Romans did, actually to a much greater extent than the early American (or Canadian) settlers did. But yes, the world is brutal. I just find it funny/ironic that there is such a move to restricting immigration and requirering it to be legal, when almost every "white" person is a decendent of someone that just came over. Hopped on a boat and showed up at Ellis island (but only if they were on steerage- if you were on the middle or upper decks you could just land.) Just like I would find it funny if Austrailia started shipping their criminals to England. :)
But yes, I can certainly see the problem with crime and the drain on services.
How would a truly capitalist society work? Where everyone is a subsistance farmer and does everything for themselves? I'm not sure how we could not depend on others.
Yes, Jamestown was a social based society but also a capital based society. I don't think the history shows us that either was the problem.
I am very glad that your dad is doing much better than he was. Good for him! Did he not get sick days?
I really think that students should be taught how to budget. My parents are horrible at budgetting. I only know how to do it because I had two teachers that stuck in a budgeting unit, one in math, and one in social studies. That one was great- you had to figure out how to live on $20 000 a year and as a family of four, had to figure out how to pay for various things. Do you do day care with both parents working? Then you likely have to drive 2 cars. Is it worth it. Can you afford life insurance? etc etc. Great class!
I meant spending more on the military than on foreign aid. For example, Canada spent 18.2 billion on the military in 2008, and less than 5 billion on foreign aid.
I looked and couldn't find anything about business grants in Canada. Did you find any?
That is a very interesting editorial. The poor direction of aid was very amusing- sad but amusing. I certainly agree with the writer that many of the problems "stem(s) from the misrule, mismanagement and corruption of the elite" however since I don't agree with his statement that "socialism is always wrong. It is as alien to Africa as it is to the rest of the world. Traditional Africa was never socialist" I'm going to have to do more research before knowing anything worth taking up your time! My African history is sorely lacking!
Just a clarification on my position on the sin issue.... The reason I keep bringing it up is because sin is the cause of all of our problems. If there was no sin, there would be no death, no disease, no famine, no poor (no rich), on and on and on. Sin corrupts EVERYTHING on this planet--including the government. And yes, I was speaking to the fact that from God's perspective we cannot do good apart from Christ...obviously from man's perspective non-Christians do "good" all the time--again, my dad being one of them :-).
I also believe that God puts government authority in our life and we are to show respect to that authority. (Romans 13:1-7) You will never find me cheering if President-elect Obama gets shoes thrown at him in Iraq despite the fact that I disagree with almost every issue he ran on because that is a huge insult to the office of the Presidency. However, I feel that we need to put our trust solely in God and trust that His Sovereign Will will be done, even in the oppression of the poor and the famines and all the bitterness of the world. (Psalm 146) Not to say that we shouldn't help, because I am the first one to jump in and be of service to others, but we need to also realize that God is working even in the most miserable situations. Where are the largest revivals happening right now? In the poorest nations where you would think they wouldn't have hope. What do they put their hope in? Not their government, but in God.
My FIL in just got back from his missions trip in India where he bought his hosts a dinner at the fanciest restaurant in their area--for $5. They packed 300 people into a church that we would say would fit maximum 80-90-- shoulder to shoulder on laps on cement floors--because they were eager to hear the Word of God preached. He preached 22 sermons in less than 3 weeks to packed churches each time. Maybe it is easier for those with nothing to see the truth in God's message... his eye is on the sparrow... (Matt. 10:26-31).
Not to say you are not worried about the sinful condition of man and again, NOT saying to not help the poor. But to me, depravity is just a symptom of sin which is why I keep bringing it up. (NOT SAYING THOSE THAT ARE POOR ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE SINNERS...just again, we live in a sinful world and there will be death and disease and famine until Christ returns for HIS purposes...possibly to see people come to salvation...)
All these topics to me are just hypotheticals because in a sinful world, with sinful people in charge, nothing will ever work the way the model says it will.
One other thing--more on topic. Another reason I believe in giving money directly instead of through the government (besides that I disapprove of some of the places the government spends my money) is that you have to pay the "middle man". The more government power you give, the more people take your money before it goes to the people who truly need it. Seems wasteful to me...
Hmmm.. I never thought about the middle man aspect of it. I wonder why Canada's system evolved the way it did while the American system was so different. Anybody know?
That's awesome about your FIL's trip! It's great to hear those kind of reports!
Over Christmas, it dawned on me that we likely have a misunderstanding about where I stand in terms of governmental systems. Perhaps we don't but I'll mention it anyways! I see socialism as an economic idea, like capitalism. I would not say that the US government was capitalist. Instead, the US is a democratic republic who's government happens to follow capitalist ideas (or used to! :) ) Canada I would describe as a democratic constitutional monarchy with an economy based on a mix of capitalist and socialist ideas. The governments you were talking about in Africa, I would describe as tyrannies or one party systems (the word escapes me at the moment) who happen to follow some economic socialist ideas. In other words, I have no sympathy for governments who promote one party rule, which would include communists but there are others, or tyrants or any other systems were by money is mismanaged and people are denyed their voice- although I'm sure we can all agree that that happens all too often in our own systems. Anyways, I hope this makes things a little clearer.
That was a lot of reading since I haven't been around lately! (Sorry, Kimberly, but sometimes I'm too overwhelmed by the topics/questions and like to wait until I've heard others talk about it first;) But good stuff! :) I've actually been meaning to do a post for a while about how Democrats and Republicans actually want some of the same things and have some of the same complaints (or reasons behind their complaints).
Re: morality, I think that although socialism seems moral because it involves giving to people who are needy and trying to make things equal for all people, I think the free market is actually more moral because people give of their own accord rather than being forced to give. I think giving should be voluntary, just like God wants us to give with a joyful heart and out of our own will. Like someone here said, it blesses both the giver and the receiver, and I think that's how God wants it to be (I hope that doesn't sound arrogant!) You can't force people into doing anything; they have to choose to do so. Even God doesn't force people to choose Him. The causes you want to give to are noble causes, but I don't think everyone should HAVE to give to them. You should be able to contribute to what you want to contribute to. Like how HM said she might have to contribute to things like Planned Parenthood. Plenty of people might think that's a noble cause, but she doesn't, so she shouldn't be forced to contribute to it. What about when the government starts forcing us to contribute to things like gambling and prostitution or pornography b/c it's a noble cause (e.g. people need entertainment; it provides jobs/helps the economy; etc.)? I know that's an extreme and unlikely example, but I'm just saying it isn't fair for one group of people to decide how everyone spends their money. We will be blessed when we choose to give, not when our money is taken by the government and redistributed as they determine (often inefficiently, as HM pointed out).
Oh, I was also gonna say regarding the government providing everything... I can see in myself the natural tendency to get lazy and apathetic when I don't have enough responsibility/motivation to do things on my own (if I don't have to do something, I don't!), so I'm sure it works on a larger scale too. And if the government's providing something, why should I work to provide it for myself, even if I can? This is just a small example, but look at the digital converter box we all need to update our TVs. You're allowed up to 2 $40 coupon cards (provided by the federal government), and I know people who have taken both even though they don't need them (in fact, don't need either), because the government is offering them. And why shouldn't they, since they offered? But what if we had to pay for it ourselves? We might only get it if we needed it, and we might work harder to get it. When it's given by the government, we forget that there really is money coming from somewhere/someone who has to pay for it. Yes, the government can just print more money, but they devalues the money we already have. I feel like it's kind of like a credit card -- when I use a credit card (which I do often, unfortunately), I can't clearly see where the money is coming from. It feels like "free money" but in fact isn't at all. With the interest that is added to it when I don't pay it off immediately, it adds up fast! Now, many people are much wiser than I am, and they do understand that the money comes from somewhere and act more responsibly with their credit cards. But judging by the massive debt in our society/country (both on a government level and on an individual level), I'd say most people do not. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that this breeds laziness, as well as increased debt and reliance on the government (just look at the bailouts for a bigger example -- plenty of companies could make money on their own, but why would they if the government might offer it to them? I'm sad to say, I might do the same thing, which is why it shouldn't even be an option).
Very good points CB! And welcome back! I was going to ask you if you were still reading here and then you show up! Excellent!
I think the government offered coupons for people because they were forcibly changing the way people received TV and it would disproportionally effect poor people- older TVs, no cable, less money to buy a box etc. I wouldn't concider this in the same category as bailing out the banks (which, by the way, isn't "socialism" in my mind- "socialism would be the government owning the banks or strictly regulating them in the first place.)
Anyways... :)
Re: CB's morality comments I think you have a higher estimation of the human race than I do! I guess I just don't trust that there will be enough people giving in order to meet the needs. For example, in our case, we're having trouble getting the help that we need because everyone is busy working (which is good. I'm not saying that working is bad.) Thankfully Josh has a good job. I don't know what a poorer family would do in our situation. Anyways, yes, I totally agree that people get more out of it when they give, and I certainly encourage giving, I just don't trust enough people to do it! Especially with this latest banking crisis, it seems very apparent how much greed there is in the world; people making decisions without thinking about their long term effect at all. As to the govenment choosing, at least it's the majority of the population that gets to decide where the money goes (or at least that's the idea!) In Canada, the government covers TONS of programs, Christian and secular, but I guess we don't have such big programs as Planned Parenthood because abortion is through the regular health system so that really isn't an issue. But then again, my viewpoint on abortion is likely different than yours as well! :)
Yes, I'm here. :) But I wasn't for a long time, it seems! ;)
I know the coupons aren't the same as the bailout, but it was an example of something the government shouldn't be handling (in my opinion), and it's all over the news lately, so that's why I mentioned it. :)
As for having a higher opinion of the human race than you do, I don't know that I agree with that. :) Maybe you're right that, if given the opportunity, people wouldn't give enough to provide for everyone, but everyone's not being provided for already. You can argue it's because of lack of government intervention, or you can argue that it's too much government intervention, or something else all together. I would argue that in some ways you have a higher estimation of the human race, because you think the government could take care of more than I do. I believe they can't, due to inefficiency (not that that's all their fault, though -- it's unreasonable for us to think the federal government could know so much to take care of everything, as diverse as the country is) and corruption (lots of power is corruptive!). Also, you say you don't trust people to give, but you do trust the majority to make the right decision on all the issues? I don't know; I guess you could argue either way (or either one of us over-estimating the human race). And how do you know if you don't give people a chance? I feel like if things aren't working, the answer is always more help from the government, but we never try it out with less to see what happens. It could be that people might rise up to the challenge and take care of each other if they weren't so dependent on the government or annoyed with the government and people taking advantage of the government's benefits, etc. In fact, I've heard of many examples of people actually getting more done by helping each other than through the government's help (e.g. cleanup in New Orleans).
I guess when I think about whether or not people will give adequately, I'm not thinking about just now in history, I'm thinking about all the way back to the start of the industrial revolution- when people started to live farther from their families and needing to rely on others for help. Most of the changes that have occured since the horrible and sickening living conditions that people had then are because of the government stepping in. Children's working hours and age limits. Adult working hour limits. The idea of a living wage. Access to schooling. Free education. Health care for anyone other than the upper class. Limits on when alchol can be sold, and how much, and at what price. Fix prices on milk and bread. All these things are government control but I am SO glad that we have them and that people fought to bring such "socialist" ideas.
oh sorry, I hit send before I finished my thought. I guess my thought is that if there was a need for the government programs then, people were not stepping into the void and helping enough back then. I know that the argument can be made that people didn't realize how bad things were, but documents from that time tend to contradict it. No Jane Austin didn't have a good grasp on all that was evil in the world, but many others did (not that she's from the worst of it, she's from the beginning of it, but anyways..) Perhaps now people would be willing to give enough, but again I really don't think so. And if you're going to go full capitalist, how much of what has been built (for example, public schooling) do we do away with?
Feel free to sign in or just comment as "anonymous." However, if you do comment as anonymous, please sign it with some name, number or symbol so that it is easier for everyone to keep the conversation players strait. Thanks!
"It's always safer for one's sanity when you only say what you would be willing to hear from someone with whom you disagree."
Purpose
The idea behind this site is that it will serve for a forum for a continuing discussion that has been occuring on several different websites. I've asked many roving questions and some friends have valiently been answering them over the past few months. This site will hopefully organize the conversation and allow others to participate. I recognize that some topics may not make a whole lot of sense, as there has been a significant amount of conversation up until now. Feel free to ask questions to clarify the ideas and history of the authors.
I reserve the right to moderate the discussion and delete any comments that are offensive. I will attempt to be in contact with the author prior to any action.
The goal is to inform and learn, not to attempt to change people's ideas.
I am a history lover, especially that of the average person at any point in time. While it is often easy to dismiss people that do not think as one does as "crazy," it is my hope and purpose to instead understand differing viewpoints than I hold, and therefore to have a greater grasp on events as they unfold. While it is not possible to interview people from the past, it is very possible to do so for the many different cultural groups that exist in our world today. Real people are much more interesting than a history textbook (as much as I love a good read!)
My viewpoint is not the purpose of this site, although undoubtibly I will have to explain where I come from as well. In fact, in the emails between friends, it has come to that point, so it will most likely be an early post. The hope, in that case, is that others who share my experience will aid me in explaining it!
35 comments:
The government exists to reward those who do good and punish those who do evil (Rom.13:3-4).
Because of this, I think that the government must set and enforce rules and limits which deter people from using their wealth in sinful ways, and they should set rules and limits (and give incentives) that encourage good use of wealth.
Although I agree with you on the purpose of government, can you please explain to me how punishing evil and rewarding good has anything to do with government's interference with personal wealth?
I found this article and thought is was appropriate for this discussion...it pretty much sums up my views (obviously better than I can! :-D)
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-econ.html
How does punishing evil and rewarding good relate to government "interference" with personal wealth?
If the way you use your personal wealth is a moral issue (i.e.: it can be good or evil) then the government should set rules and limits and incentives to punish evil use of wealth and reward good use of wealth.
People should not be rewarded by the government for hording too much money or for using their money to create sinful enterprises. They should be discouraged from such activity (and punished in some cases). Drug-dealing-organizations, prostitution rings, gambling casinos, abortion clinics – these are examples of sinful enterprises. They should not be permitted to prosper as much as they want.
But people should be rewarded (encouraged) by the government for giving to those in need and for using their money to create good enterprises (tax breaks for giving to good charities, special funding for schools and hospitals, etc.)
Does that make sense?
In one sense I agree with you...the list of things you chose are evil, but I disagree that it is a money issue. You make laws making prostitution and abortion illegal. Then the people can't spend their money in those ways. I also agree in giving tax exemptions for using your money in helping others.
However, money in and of itself is not evil. If someone chooses to "hoard" it for an emergency or for their retirement, they should not be punished. Biblically it is correct to save your money and have it to pass down to your children as an inheritance. It is sinful to be in debt to anyone.
Proverbs 6:6-8; “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest.”
Proverbs 21:20 “There is desirable treasure, and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man squanders it.”
1 Timothy 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
I could go on and on...
People should not be punished for earning money. People SHOULD be punished for foolishly squandering that money away. For going into debt. For spending more than they make and expecting others to make up the difference. For coveting what they cannot afford.
My opinion is that of the article that I posted in my earlier comment. I would rather have individuals make choices rather than have the government set the lines because I feel the government is corrupt. Yes we are sinful and make bad choices, but I feel that because we are sinful, we do not want to lose what we have. People use the government as a crutch and don't realize that the money the government is using (in unwise ways) is their money.
For example, my father in law is a VERY Godly man. He is a pastor. He also owns his own business licensing people to do adult developmentally disabled foster care...and makes WAY more money than he knows what to do with. He tithes 30%+ of his income, and gives $10,000 a month towards missions. He also gives his cars away to people in need, helps out my husband's business when times are slow and helps out people in the church whenever they need it. He is currently in India for 3 weeks building churches (in Mumbai where they bombed two days before he left). He also puts away a good chunk of his income towards savings for his retirement. God continues to bless him with more and more money.
He is almost forced to give away 70% of his income because the government would take his money to use towards things he is AGAINST...such as funding for Planned Parenthood. The government does NOT know the best place to put the money God has given him...and God continually blesses him in abundance because he has faithfully shown throughout the years that he will give it back to be used by Him.
When the government is involved it actually serves to take money AWAY from those who would use it to help others. The government uses it towards funding programs that are ungodly...such as planned parenthood and welfare (there I said it!!!)
The reason welfare is ungodly is because it is NOT the job of the government, but the job of the church. The church has become lazy and allowed the government to take over and RUIN what should be a blessing to believers--the helping out of those in need. Instead, the money is being used in many instances to keep people from working and to fund laziness.
It should be a blessing to give. And research has shown that those who believe that it is not the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth give WAY more than those who believe it is the government's responsibility.
One of my favorite quotes by Abraham Lincoln is "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
I think the government has become WAY too involved in our lives and has allowed people to become lazy and uneducated in the basic tenets of economics. In its quest to "help" people, it is actually serving to make us dependent on it for survival. We are called to be dependent on God not on man. The more we can get the government out of our lives, the better we can focus on what God wants for our lives. The government does not have God's best interest at heart, they have their own selfish self-interest at heart.
When the government becomes involved, they end up hurting those that are trying to be self-sufficient and not be a drain on society. For example...my family. My husband is a small business owner of an electrical contracting company. His business has made enough over this last year that under our newly elected president, we would be considered "wealthy" and be overly taxed...yet there were three months this year where my husband didn't take a pay check so that he could make sure he was able to pay his employees. When Obama's tax increase happens to our "wealthy business", my husband's business will go under because the "profit" that Obama sees goes to making sure we can buy materials and pay our employees throughout the year--even in months when we make no income because business is slow. He would take that "profit" and redistribute it--and my husband would have to fire his employees because he could no longer afford to pay them when there is no work. That is just one company. My husband's company is not alone. When the government sticks its nose into small businesses (the backbone of the free market), the unemployment rate sky rockets and the economy slows WAY down. That's what has happened in the past, and that is what we get to look forward to in the future.
Sorry...got on a bit of a rant :-D.
So much to catch up on! :)
HM- I'm a little confused and feel free to tell me to mind my own business! As far as I understand it, Obama will tax families that make over 250,000 a year, not businesses. From what I can tell, he wants to give tax cuts to small businesses, specifically payroll tax. I don't understand much about US taxes or payroll taxes in either country so maybe this isn't helpful, but if your husband is sometimes not taking home a salary (which I'm sure his employees love you guys for, you sound like great employers) then, unless his salary is very large, maybe it won't be a problem for you guys.
That was a very interesting article. Thanks for stating what you thought of it so I knew how to read it! :) It was really surprising to me that he stated that many christians don't think about economic issues. In my head, it's one of the biggest issues in regards to living out my faith that I can think of! But then again, I tend to be very hung up on social justice issues often to my own detrament! :)
I agree with a lot of the article, especially how capitalism is safer because the economic power is more diversified and not in the hands of a few people. I'm not sure I agree with his assumptions that because we are made in the image of God that directly means that we should be allowed private property, or that the private property must be in every aspect of life. I also do not agree with his (in my perception) assumption that all socialism must emulate Marxism. I see socialism as an idea under construction, that it has changed over the years. I am certainly not a Marxist, but I still consider myself a socialist (with a small 's' for a reason.)
I think a big difference between the States and Canada is what we perceive the government doing with our tax money. Here churches are small and there is no way we could support a welfare system on our own. Our church sponsered a refugee family a few years ago and that was very straining. More importantly, the government funds most of our charitable organizations- and to a substantial amount (and without hirering qualifiers.) So I know that the small amount of taxes that we pay, (which wouldn't cover my health care bills anyways) goes to places like the Salvation Army shelter, food programs in schools, daycare spaces so teen moms can go to school, and foriegn aid.
Again with the prying- 70%? That's a lot! Where does all that go? - state, fed, county? How do your taxes get broken up? Do you have fees and such for libraries etc on top of your taxes?
As far as we can figure it out, our wealthiest pay somewhere around 50% when everything is added up.
Clarification: I do not consider saving money to be "hording," especially saving money for your children. I agree that the government should encourage saving money, not discourage it.
All I was trying to say was that the government should not "reward people for hording their money...". (For example: I don't think it should give extra hand-outs or extra-tax breaks to richer individuals compared to poorer individuals). (Company tax is different than individual tax in my mind - I don't know much about how companies are taxed.)
By "rewarding hording" I was thinking of the opposite of "rewarding giving to charity".
I think I basically agree with the article about capitalism. However, I don't know if I would say that "I believe in capitalism" or "I believe in socialism." I think we are just called to live with whatever system we have and make the most of it. The government has the right to demand taxes. It has the basic mandate to "reward good and punish evil". Beyond that, however, I think there is room for many different forms of government or economic systems.
PS: The whole "welfare" question could be a great topic in itself.
Wow 50%!!! That is a lot! I'm sorry I confused you Kimberly...I was exaggerating sarcastically...I should have put a smiley face :-D. I just meant that he has to give away a lot of money because he knows better where to put it than the government (although he really does give 30% tithe and an additional 10K a month to missions). I don't know how much he actually makes, just that he makes more than he knows what to do with and I overheard him tell my husband that he wanted to give him as much money as he needed to keep his business going because he could write it off as an investment company, otherwise the taxes he is going to have to pay this year are astronomical....but no where near 50%! I can't imagine that!!! What's the point of working if you have to give it all away!
As far as taxing small businesses, I am getting that information from my husband. I thought it was personal wealth as well (which I still think is wrong), but he swears that he included small businesses in it. To be honest, I don't know much about how the taxes work on his business either so I'm getting all that second hand. However, what I stated about higher taxes still holds true--higher taxes means less jobs...basic economics. And my husband and his partner only take $100 more a week than their employees...when they take a check...so we wouldn't currently personally be considered "wealthy"...
Chris-I agree with you...no system is perfect. Obviously I lean more towards capitalism though :-D. As I've stated on some of Kimberly's other questions, we live in a sin-cursed world so nothing here is going to be perfect. And I agree...we just have to do the best with what we're given.
As far as "I don't think it should give extra hand-outs or extra-tax breaks to richer individuals compared to poorer individuals"...I don't think they do that much. Those that make a higher income, get taxed at a higher level. They currently give tax breaks to companies, but like I argued earlier, I think that is just good economics. But personally wealthy people have to buy property or put their money elsewhere to avoid extra taxes.
Regardless, if someone earned that money through hard work or intelligent financial decisions, they should have the right to determine what to do with it. The line of who should be considered wealthy could be drawn at many different levels depending on who you ask. I don't want the government deciding what that level is.
I personally don't think someone making $250,000 a year is "wealthy"...yes they make a good living, but I wouldn't consider it wealthy. However, someone making $25,000 a year would think someone making $100K would be wealthy. So it all depends on who you ask...and the cost of living in the part of the country you live in. I might be wrong, but I hear that renting a small apartment in NYC, costs as much as my monthly mortgage. So those people must make quite a bit of money just to survive. Should they be taxed higher because their jobs happen to be in one of the most inflated cities in the country? How would they afford to live? Someone making 25K in Des Moines, Iowa, would be equivalent of someone making 100K in NYC expenditure wise. See the problem?
The rest of that really good quote by President Lincoln that I quoted earlier goes:
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
--Abraham Lincoln
He was a smart man!
Question for Kimberly:
What are the basic principles of socialism (small s) that you affirm?
So much to comment on! This is fabulous! (and giving me something to think about on a wierd health day- Thank you!)
What do I affirm from socialism?
It comes down to what I feel should be basic human rights. I believe that God created each and every human being as equal to everyone else. Therefore, simply because I live in Canada, I am no more worthy of life than someone in Africa. Therefore, I believe that everyone, in my country as well as the planet, deserves enough food to eat, clean water, health care, and education. I really don't care what kind of government does these things, but the only countries I've seen that have been close to accomplishing this are the northern European countries, hense my socialist leanings. I'm not sure Capitalism could ever accomplish it because it seems to require that workers are paid less (whether inside the actual country or outsourced) in order to create competative products.
I really don't agree that we simply have to live with what we are given. In that case, children would still be working in coal mines. Yes, there is a matter of being satisfied with your lot in life and that's probably what you guys were saying, but I'm just going to add that I think there is definitely a place for political activism and charity work amoung Christians.
I am very well aware of the fact that had I been born poor in many areas of the world, I would not be alive today. No possible way. And even if I had survived, neither of our children would have.
This colours all of my thinking in terms of economic theory and social justice issues. Just so you know where I'm coming from! :)
Yup, 50% is a lot, but that is only the most wealthy that pay that much. We're somewhere around 40% which includes everything from sales tax to our fed and prov. taxes and our city and property taxes. This covers all pre-university education (pre-school is covered in our area) and heavily subsidises college and university. It covers all health care except dental, eyes, non-prescriptive, and prescription medicine up to a point. It also covers libraries and all our city services (except gyms and pools.) We also added unemployment insurance and the Canada pension plan into our calculations because they also come off the paycheque.
Perhaps if I didn't have a university education (which has come in oh so handy! :) ) or use the health care system so frequently (just this weekend I used around $1000,) or if Josh hadn't taken 5 months of parental leave after Katie was born, I wouldn't feel like a got my money's worth out of the deal, but in our case, we certainly have been a net drain on the system! :)
We certianly could talk about the welfare system. I had posted a question about food stamps a long time ago with no takers.
I'll see if I can think up a good question to get us started. Let me know if you (any/either of you) come up with one and I'll post it.
Kimberly, I agree that we are created equally and because we are created in God's image, we need to help each other and honor that. But again, I feel that is the church's responsibility...not government's. And by "church", I mean the body of Christ, not individual churches--although that is a basis from where to start.
However, you brought up two entirely different problems. You cannot equate the poor in places like America and Canada to the poor in places like Africa. The scale is completely different and we cannot even begin to address the issues that the poor in 3rd world countries are dealing with. We need to be thankful every day that God placed us where He did and do our best to help financially and physically where we can. For example, my sister in law is in the process of adopting orphans from these countries--so believe me, we feel the plight of these countries and are doing what little we can to help. (Side note...it costs a LOT of money to adopt an international child and most of that money does not go to the children, but to the CORRUPT government...but I digress...)
Again I will say that we live in a sin-cursed world. We need to pray for our brothers and sisters around the world, but there will be pain and suffering until Christ returns. It is a sad fact of life in a world of sinners.
But we are not a one-world government. We are individual nations. So we must deal with what's best for our nations...and answer your hypothetical questions as best we can :-D.
The poorest person in America could have a roof over their head and food if they chose to do so--they cannot be equated to someone in a 3rd world country. People who are willing to work hard here CAN make a difference in their lives...I have seen it happen over and over again--including my own life.
We have mental institutions for those who are insane, foster care and group homes for the mentally disabled, group homes for those wanting to get back on their feet, homeless shelters and programs galore to help those who need help. But they have to actually work towards that help--which is only right.
We have public education. We have headstart (preschool for poor kids). We have government funded day cares. We have gobs and gobs of grants out there free for the taking for anyone who knows how to go to the public library to look. If I wasn't so lazy, I could have had my entire college paid for by grants, but I took the "easy" way out and got financial aid.
Oh and don't forget the new fad... if your bills become too much--just declare bankruptcy and all will be forgiven in 7 years...my sister did it THREE times! (my sister happens to be a democrat...just pointing out that we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues...)
I will not say our health insurance system is perfect, but I WILL say it is better than Canada's. That's why people in Canada come to America to get treated! I'm glad that it has worked for you personally, but I'm not convinced that government funded universal healthcare is a good thing in general. Doctors can be forced to go on vacation and you are left waiting for critical results for weeks (a friend had to wait 3 weeks to know if she had kidney failure or not!)...not to mention ridiculous long wait times in the ER! (your own blog)
In America, you get customer service. The doctor has to treat you no matter what. The wait time in the ER is at MOST an hour...and that is long. I can call my doctor up anytime and get in the same day for treatment and I get my results back within 48 hours--and that's a long time.
We have government funded health programs too--my foster kids are on it right now. Those below the poverty line (which is fairly high) only have to fill out an application and they can be on it. There are free clinics all over the country for people who can't afford health insurance so they can get vaccines and basic treatment. The health "crisis" is not THAT bad--it is bad, but it has also been blown a little out of proportion.
I think the solution to high health prices is regulating the insurance companies and stopping frivolous health lawsuits which cause doctor's to have to charge more to pay for malpractice insurance, etc. not having the government take it over. I think they should give incentives to those who are proactive on their healthcare-- lower insurance for those who go to their annual visits, live healthier lifestyles, etc. I think something needs to be done, but universal healthcare only works in a socialist economy...and we're not there...yet.
But I guess that's why I'm a capitalist. I think that people need to take responsibility for their life...for what they've been given. That is something you can do in America. You can't do that in Africa and Mexico and I feel sorry for those people...but they have a CORRUPT GOVERNMENT! That didn't happen overnight. I don't trust government!
When people take responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming the government for problems and start looking for solutions themselves, they are happier, they are more fulfilled, and they prosper. The best programs out there are the ones that teach people how to do things themselves--give them hope.
When people start blaming the government or someone else for their problems, when they sit back and get handouts, they spiral downward. It's happened time and time again, and it is happening right now in America and it makes me sick.
I will say that all systems have their flaws and although the socialist system does take care of people's needs, I still think it breeds laziness.
Here was a blog I read a little while back about early socialism in America:
http://the-conservative-underground.blogspot.com/2008/11/early-socialism-in-america.html
And my response to the lower wages thing... get a new job--or be like my husband and (millions of other Americans) and start your own business (there are gobs and gobs of grants out there for that too!)--of course you'll get taxed out of your mind....
Wow...I write a lot!
It never looks like that much when I'm typing. :-D You have a way of getting me going when I should just shut up...sorry!
I love that you write a lot! But that is too much for me to try to reply to in any coherent manner right now! :) I'll try to write some tonight. You brought up some excellent points.
Kim, you say:
"I believe that everyone... deserves enough food to eat, clean water, health care, and education. I really don't care what kind of government does these things, but the only countries I've seen that have been close to accomplishing this are the northern European countries..."
Really? Doesn't almost everyone in North America and the Western World have enough access to food, water and education?
Maybe the way of providing health care is the basic difference between Western nations.
I don't know about the health care system in the USA. How many people have no basic health care services?
While many people in North America have enough water, I would argue that food and especially education are lacking for many people. Wpg Harvest serves thousands and thousands of people. I will not be satisfied until there is no need for food banks.
Education is another major issue. Here it almost totally depends on the wealth of your parents and your upbringing as to whether you will go to college. In some cases, as long as there has been a lot of family support or determination, the poor can get student loans. However, there is a good section of people who's parents are too poor (or refuse) to help, but yet they can't qualify for either student loans or grants. I would rather see a system such as German has, where as long as you pass requirements, university is paid for by the government, (as are all colleges and trade schools etc.) Certainly that system also has problems, but that is the direction I would like to see us go.
According to wikipedia definitions, I would fall into the "social democrat" area. Our Premier described it as "mixed economy, strong role of the public sector." Man! I sound like I'm a government lacky which is so totally not the case, I just happen to agree with the base principals of the party that we happen to have in power here in Manitoba! :)
HM- Alright, time for a reply! I will try to comment on everything you wrote but we’ll see how long I last! I’ve been roaming in internet land for the last hour after checking out that blog post link.
I’ll start with that while it’s fresh in my brain and I still have pages open. I really didn’t know anything about the Jamestown settlement so I decided to educate myself! It seemed odd to me that the settlers would have just allowed themselves to perish because they didn’t feel like working- that goes against human nature- we all want to survive- otherwise wars would be massive suicides.
Anyways, what I learned was that the Starving Time had little to do with the organizational structure of the settlement, except for the complete lack of planning for emergencies. The settlers had never planned to support themselves through agriculture. Likely they all had gardens, but agriculture on a large scale was not planned until after the Starving Time occurred (hence breaking up the land into plots at that point.) I was wondering why the settlements were so dependent on the arrival of English ships- that didn’t seem to make logical sense to me given all the naval wars and weather challenges, but then I don’t think they were very good planners! They had planned to trade with local native tribes for the majority of their food, thus making them dependent on the arrival of ships to supply them with trade goods. Perhaps this would have worked had they attempted to play nice with their neighbours. Relations disintegrated until in 1609, the chief of the Pohwattan Confederacy (the tribes around the settlement had joined together-mainly through warfare) refused to trade with them, effectively putting the settlement under siege. To make matters worse, a ship did arrive but with more settlers and no food. Any attempts at farming by the settlers would also have been difficult at this time as the area was experiencing a flood, and the majority of the settlers had little to no agricultural experience. So yeah, not sure what it says about collective organizational strategy or the basic tenants of socialism (taking care that everyone has enough) but instead (I think) shows that illegal immigrants should bring what they need to the new country!
Anyways,
Helping each other as church’s responsibility. Yes! But (in my head) also the governments’. Christians simply could not do it all in Canada- there are not enough of us! I’m very glad that the government gives to the Christian organizations that I also try to support. Often when World Vision contacts us about this emergency or that, the government is matching donations or paying for transportation costs or something, as well as companies joining in as well. Yes, possibly if we paid less tax, we would have more money to donate more, however, this way everyone is “forced” to donate, not just the religious. It also makes it much more efficient (at least we in Canada don’t feel that everything our government touches goes to crap) and allows the different charities to dialogue with the government as to their needs.
Oh man! I am such a wimp! Our cat just caught a mouse and besides the fact that I am grossed out and frustrated that we had a mouse get into the house, now Josh has to kill it since the cat was just playing. Eww! Eww! Gross! Gross! I love my husband!
Ok,
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was equating poor people in other places to poor in North America. Totally not the same thing. At all. In any way.
However, I do think that we have a responsibility to both groups.
Certainly some people are lazy, but I don’t believe that the majority of North American poor are. I added another post with a link that pretty much describes what I feel is the major problem with how we treat the poor in Canada. There’s no reason why we couldn’t get everyone who wanted a roof over their head into appropriate accommodations for their needs. The people that don’t want help will always be there, but there are many, many, many (at least here) that have mental health issues that require help. Day care is so expensive that single parents are often reduced to poverty. There’s no reason why any child born in Canada shouldn’t be able to live a decent life because of their parent’s financial situation (at least as much as is possible.) I’m not talking about middle class “poor” making a good living (assumption here to your reference of your own life, perhaps I’m mistaken) but the people who can’t pay the rent and can’t apply for a job or a better job because, once homeless, they don’t have a fixed address or phone number. I’m talking only about the people dying on the streets and the families who don’t have enough to both eat and heat their homes (big problem here in middle of winter, when heating bills in the only affordable housing can reach $400 per month.)
In terms of international poverty, I am appalled at the tiny amount of aid that is given by our governments. Certainly it’s better than no aid, but it’s nowhere near what we could be doing. Not that everywhere should be like North America, I don’t think many places would want all the trappings of our consumerist lifestyles, but people deserve to see their children grow up without the threat of starvation or easily combated disease. In a world where we spend millions and millions of dollars figuring out how to kill each other, I think we can afford to figure out how to keep people alive.
Interestingly in Canada, we do not have a lot of grants for university. If you want to be a doctor, you can apply to a rural town to support you and then work for them (paid) for several years. But other than that, most of the grants are for masters and doctoral studies. Josh had his first year paid for in scholarships (but he’s massively smart) and parts of his later years. I’m not sure why there is such a difference, maybe simply a population issue. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think that there are a lot of grants for starting up your own business. I’ve never heard of any. Loans, yes (well, or used to be before the financial meltdown!) and lots of tax cuts, but grants, I don’t think so (again here in Manitoba.) In response to the idea of getting a new job or starting one’s own business to combat the problem of low wages, I’m not sure that would work if you didn’t have a good support system behind you in the form of family or grants. The single parent who didn’t happen to get to go to university and is already working two minimum wage jobs often can’t do any more physically. There is no time for schooling or even for looking for other work. “The pursuit of happiness” movie rubbed me totally the wrong way- putting your kid out on the street because you want to train for a higher paying job. No way! Get a job, any job and feed your kid!
Anyways, I’m also of the opinion that minimum wage should be a living wage so that people are able to survive with one full time job. (I’m also a believer that price controls on milk and bread are a good thing when coupled with funding for diary and grain farmers.)
Do a lot of people declare bankruptcy in the States? I don’t mean just now with the financial crisis, but in general? I’ve only ever heard of one person in my entire life and that was the friend of a friend’s parents.
Yes, I will definitely agree that your health care system is faster. We do not have enough doctors! Or nurses and lab techs, but the major problem is doctors. There has been a massive problem with health professionals seeing that the grass (wages and weather) is nicer on the other side of the border. Not that we can complain. Our government actively advertises to fill the vacancies with South African doctors! I am NOT in favour of that! Talk about intellectual poaching from a country that could, instead, use our help!
Our health care system has not worked for me, partly because I’m only learning now how to be a good (and annoying) patient, but also because I have a difficult disease and there are no specialists in that field in our province (basically because they haven’t decided where to put CFS and so few doctors study it! Oh the joys!) My best shot in the States would be the Mayo Clinic, but very little research has been done on this in the States. England has done the greatest majority of research on the topic because there was actually a fatality directly linked to CFS there several years ago.
But anyways, yes, your system is much faster, likely because of the numbers of health care providers and the grouping of your population. There are not a lot of areas in the lower 48 where you’d have to travel 8 hours (or worse) to see a doctor.
Yes, we had a ridiculously long wait in the ER but that is slowly being worked on. I’m going to be nosy and ask where your friend lives..? That is absolutely horrible that she had to wait that long for such an important test! That should totally not have happened! Generally, my experience has been similar to yours in terms of doctor’s customer service and test results.
On another health care note, Josh was doing some research and found a stat that said that the American government covers 44% of overall health care costs while the Canadian government covers 70%. When you combine that with the per capita expenditures on health care ($5711 in the US, and $2669 in Canada), the US government spends significantly more per person on health care than Canada does, and yet our life expectancy is higher, and infant mortality is lower. I’m not sure what that says or means, I just found that interesting.
3rd page- my response is now longer than your comment so you don’t have to feel bad about writing for a long time!
I think the incentives idea is very interesting and could certainly be an idea in a capitalist system, but I’m not sure how it would work. Do they trust that because you check off “non-smoker” that you really don’t? And what happens if you just smoke once? That is (or so I’ve heard) enough to increase your risk of lung cancer.
I don’t think I’m taking your next paragraph right. Are you blaming the people of those countries/areas for their corrupt governments? I tend to blame the whole situation of imperialist powers controlling those areas and then governments falling to revolutionary forces. When there is a total collapse of a society’s institutions, there is going to be years and years of chaos- especially when the new leaders are propped up by foreign entities who want access to the countries natural resources.
Totally agree with your next paragraph. Welfare systems only work if job training is a key ingredient.
Don’t totally agree with the next, at least in international poverty. I think the people of Zimbabwe are totally justified in blaming their government for a good portion of their problems!
Hand-out is an interesting word. It’s not a word that is often used, at least around here. We tend to talk more about people being “supported” which often means low-income housing (not free,) job training and financial counselling, and welfare to cover groceries and rent while training is occurring (unless you’re a single parent and then sometimes it means allowing you to stay home with your kids if you’re not healthy enough to work and do childcare at the same time.) Hand-out sounds like there aren’t strings attached. Like money given to a person you meet on the street. Am I getting that right? Is that the idea? I could see then that you would feel that socialism, and even social democracy, would breed laziness. That would make sense. My view is totally different. I see social centered thought like a construction crew. We all work (our butts off) as much as we are able and in the way that we can most utilize our own individual talents for the betterment of our collective society.
Ok, I’m done now. I’ll understand if it takes you a while to reply, but I can’t wait to hear what you have to say! (Chris you’re very welcome to comment on this too even though it is addressed to Honormommy. And feel free to come over if you’re bored the next few days- we are on vacation!)
Well, first I would like to say that I agree with you that a socialist society is the best society IF we had perfect leaders…we don’t and we won’t until Christ returns.
As far as Jamestown goes, it was still a more socialist society than a capitalist society. TRUE capitalist societies depend on themselves, not others. Again I will state that I don’t think America is still a true capitalist society. But I agree most with the IDEALS of a capitalist society (until Christ returns).
Oh and I’m sure you were just joking, but I take issue with the statement of: “but instead (I think) shows that illegal immigrants should bring what they need to the new country!” The settlers were not “illegal immigrants”. Every country in Europe was taken over by conquerors, and no one complains about that. India, South Africa, Australia… but people only talk about the poor Native Americans who got their land taken from them. Before Americans came here, many tribes fought over land and “conquered” other tribes—in different ways, but it was still brutal. I don’t feel bad for being a conquering nation any more than the Romans felt bad for conquering all the lands they conquered. In fact, in many ways, we were “nicer” than the Romans—we at least gave them some land for them to keep as their own and they are allowed to live by their own laws…that was more than the Romans did. I will agree that conquering the Native Americans wasn’t the “right” thing to do, but what’s done is done. And again, WE LIVE IN A SIN-CURSED WORLD…natural man if left to himself is evil—he doesn’t know HOW to do good. The Bible says any good we do outside of Christ is as filthy rags.
But they were still different than illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are breaking MANY laws in entering our country. There are thousands of immigrants every year who go through the legal routes to become productive citizens. The illegal immigrants often are criminals in their own countries and come here to continue their crime sprees. In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegals. At least 83% of arrest warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegals. The number climbs to 86% for Albuquerque. The most wanted lists for each of these cities is comprised of at least 75% illegal aliens. Those who aren’t criminals are also a drain on our society as they take in our services without paying the taxes for them. They are part of the reason our healthcare is so expensive—illegals use the ER like their own personal doctor’s office. And that’s just one of many examples.
But I digress…
“Certainly some people are lazy, but I don’t believe that the majority of North American poor are.” I didn’t mean that I felt all of the poor in America were lazy. I feel that a socialist society makes people lazy because they wait for someone to do for them what they could do themselves. And I feel that the programs that we currently have also MAKE people lazy by not teaching them how to do for themselves. I think that instead of just giving people handouts, they should require them to take basic economic and budgeting classes (and be compensated for their time). I also feel that if they are taking our money, they should be required to give receipts for how they are spending it.
As far as the personal poverty in my own life, I was not speaking of myself personally (although we went from below the poverty level to middle middle class since we’ve been married), but rather, my father. He was the oldest of six children. They grew up in a 500 sq foot home that was filthy and crawling with cockroaches. My grandfather was an abusive alcoholic on disability and didn’t work. My grandmother worked 3 different waitressing jobs to support the family. 4 of his siblings still live in those kinds of conditions. In high school my dad asked if he could live with one of his friends in kind of a foster care situation since his parents were moving. They agreed. My dad then learned the value of hardwork and how to be responsible with the money he earned. He went into the military and learned trade skills. He then went on to work in the heating and cooling business. Because of his hard work and responsibility (my dad never missed a day of work…ever), after I went off to college, he was rewarded with becoming a manager of a special unit that traveled the country installing air conditioning units into MRIs—basically his dream job.
As far as bankruptcy goes, I know of three people that are close enough to have told me about it (my sister, a friend of my husband’s and my brother-in-law’s sister) …I probably know more. I don’t know how many of my extended family members have declared bankruptcy—they wouldn’t tell me if they did.
I know I sound cynical and of course I don’t think it’s the case with everyone, but I have known too many people personally who take advantage of the system for me to think the programs we have are set up appropriately. For example, a friend of mine does foster care as well. The children she has’ biological parents had government funded budgeting for electricity to run their air conditioning (in AZ it is as necessary for air conditioning in the summer as heat in the winter in Canada). It is prorated and they only have a certain amount per month. They turned off their air conditioning so that they had enough electricity to play video games. The people in the low rent housing behind my house growing up drove nicer cars than we did. My dad’s brother purposefully didn’t work enough during the year so that he could still get food stamps—yet with his 6 kids, he got a huge tax refund each year. He spent that on motorcycles and entertainment systems.
Like I said, we have program after program for people who want it. I watched that Pursuit of Happyness also and both my husband and I were horrified by what he did. My husband has “lowered” himself to working in grocery stores stocking shelves when we didn’t have enough to survive—highschoolers do it! There are jobs out there and if people were taught how to budget, they could survive and raise a family on minimum wage.
And there are many programs out there for single mothers. They get more tax breaks, have help for daycare, etc. In fact, I also know people who choose not to get married because it would actually cost them more money to raise their kids—that is messed up! But again…sin…
But like I said, people are not taught HOW to take care of themselves. Many of the extreme poverty in our country come from families in extreme poverty, who came from families in extreme poverty, etc. The cycle has not been broken because instead of teaching them how to take care of themselves, they are teaching them to become reliable on the government to take care of them. Those that are in extreme poverty can pretty much go to college for free (LOTS AND LOTS of grants for people in extended poverty), yet they don’t because no one has given them any hope that they CAN do better. My dad’s favorite saying is “give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”
“In a world where we spend millions and millions of dollars figuring out how to kill each other, I think we can afford to figure out how to keep people alive.” We spend MORE money on helping people each year than ‘figuring out how to kill each other’ (even the military). But again…SIN.
Google “small business bureau” and you will find tons of information about how to start up your own business and how to get grants. There are also tons of books in the library. When my husband started his company, he met with a counselor from the SBB for free who gave him advice and helped him make a proposal and everything else he needed to get started. The help is out there; people just need to be taught where to look.
I’m not sure what part of Canada Shirley lives in…she is an online friend who had asked us to pray for her.
”I think the incentives idea is very interesting and could certainly be an idea in a capitalist system, but I’m not sure how it would work. Do they trust that because you check off “non-smoker” that you really don’t?” They actually already have programs set up through corporations that do this. It is like getting life insurance. You go in and get a blood test done—they can tell if you are a smoker. In general though people put money into tax deductible/tax free health savings accounts and only get insurance for the amount that they need (they have 3 or 4 different levels to choose from). Of course I don’t know all the details and I don’t know how they would do it nationally, but I think it is important for people to take responsibility for their health (as much as possible) as well as the other aspects of their life.
”I don’t think I’m taking your next paragraph right. Are you blaming the people of those countries/areas for their corrupt governments?” OF COURSE NOT!!! That is my point. The socialist GOVERNMENTs are corrupt. Much of the money that gets sent there for aid is kept by the government. Here is an interesting article I found: http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/Betrayal.asp The people in those countries are left to the mercy of a corrupt government and do not have the opportunity to do anything else.
“I see social centered thought like a construction crew. We all work (our butts off) as much as we are able and in the way that we can most utilize our own individual talents for the betterment of our collective society.” Yes, that is the IDEAL view of socialism. Unfortunately socialism in practice does not work that way again due to sinful man.
It seems to me that neither HM nor Kim are extreme capitalist or extreme socialist.
Both of you seem to agree that it is good for the government to provide some basic funding of social programs/assistance for society (for those who are in most severe need/poverty).
HM seems to think there is already more than enough (in the US), Kim seems to think there is not enough (in Canada).
HM is concerned about the corruption of people in government and the way government programs tend to encourage laziness and other nonChristian values. Kim is concerned about the greed and carelessness of individuals and the private sector, if government does not play a stronger role.
Am I understanding both of you correctly?
Chris is a very wise man :-D
I'm not sure that I'm particularily concerned about the greed and carelessness of the private sector- if Christians really gave and we comprised 90% of the population, perhaps I wouldn't feel that government would need to step in! But yes, close enough. :)
I think that the systems are also very different between the two countries, or at least the way we view our systems. I would not support the idea of a welfare system without strings attached. However I have seen people move from the disasterous situations that landed them in welfare, to being able to make their own way through education and job training.
I also think there is a fundamental difference in how we view natural man. Yes we live in a sin-cursed world. Nothing that we can do is good enough for God. However, many non-Christians I know are prefectly lovely people. We have muslim and jewish organizations (and others) that do great work. I feel confident in their ability to do good work in the world and be responsible leaders. I do not feel the government must be corrupt. I'm not a fan of Harper but I don't think that the entire Conservative party is corrupt, or that everything they do is going to fail. So.. while I agree that the world won't be completely peaceful until Christ comes, I feel that we can work towards good governence and that good working socialist democracies are possible even without perfect leaders.
Does that make my position a little more clear?
Comments on HM's post:
Yes people complain all the time about what happened in India, South Africa and Australia. People don't tend to complain about Europe because it was a REALLY long time ago, but you could probably still find people cursing the Vikings or the Huns! :) Um..keeping land and laws was exactly what the Romans did, actually to a much greater extent than the early American (or Canadian) settlers did. But yes, the world is brutal. I just find it funny/ironic that there is such a move to restricting immigration and requirering it to be legal, when almost every "white" person is a decendent of someone that just came over. Hopped on a boat and showed up at Ellis island (but only if they were on steerage- if you were on the middle or upper decks you could just land.) Just like I would find it funny if Austrailia started shipping their criminals to England. :)
But yes, I can certainly see the problem with crime and the drain on services.
How would a truly capitalist society work? Where everyone is a subsistance farmer and does everything for themselves? I'm not sure how we could not depend on others.
Yes, Jamestown was a social based society but also a capital based society. I don't think the history shows us that either was the problem.
I am very glad that your dad is doing much better than he was. Good for him! Did he not get sick days?
I really think that students should be taught how to budget. My parents are horrible at budgetting. I only know how to do it because I had two teachers that stuck in a budgeting unit, one in math, and one in social studies. That one was great- you had to figure out how to live on $20 000 a year and as a family of four, had to figure out how to pay for various things. Do you do day care with both parents working? Then you likely have to drive 2 cars. Is it worth it. Can you afford life insurance? etc etc. Great class!
I meant spending more on the military than on foreign aid. For example, Canada spent 18.2 billion on the military in 2008, and less than 5 billion on foreign aid.
I looked and couldn't find anything about business grants in Canada. Did you find any?
That is a very interesting editorial. The poor direction of aid was very amusing- sad but amusing. I certainly agree with the writer that many of the problems "stem(s) from the misrule, mismanagement and corruption of the elite" however since I don't agree with his statement that "socialism is always wrong. It is as alien to Africa as it is to the rest of the world. Traditional Africa was never socialist" I'm going to have to do more research before knowing anything worth taking up your time! My African history is sorely lacking!
Just a clarification on my position on the sin issue.... The reason I keep bringing it up is because sin is the cause of all of our problems. If there was no sin, there would be no death, no disease, no famine, no poor (no rich), on and on and on. Sin corrupts EVERYTHING on this planet--including the government. And yes, I was speaking to the fact that from God's perspective we cannot do good apart from Christ...obviously from man's perspective non-Christians do "good" all the time--again, my dad being one of them :-).
I also believe that God puts government authority in our life and we are to show respect to that authority. (Romans 13:1-7) You will never find me cheering if President-elect Obama gets shoes thrown at him in Iraq despite the fact that I disagree with almost every issue he ran on because that is a huge insult to the office of the Presidency. However, I feel that we need to put our trust solely in God and trust that His Sovereign Will will be done, even in the oppression of the poor and the famines and all the bitterness of the world. (Psalm 146) Not to say that we shouldn't help, because I am the first one to jump in and be of service to others, but we need to also realize that God is working even in the most miserable situations. Where are the largest revivals happening right now? In the poorest nations where you would think they wouldn't have hope. What do they put their hope in? Not their government, but in God.
My FIL in just got back from his missions trip in India where he bought his hosts a dinner at the fanciest restaurant in their area--for $5. They packed 300 people into a church that we would say would fit maximum 80-90-- shoulder to shoulder on laps on cement floors--because they were eager to hear the Word of God preached. He preached 22 sermons in less than 3 weeks to packed churches each time. Maybe it is easier for those with nothing to see the truth in God's message... his eye is on the sparrow... (Matt. 10:26-31).
Not to say you are not worried about the sinful condition of man and again, NOT saying to not help the poor. But to me, depravity is just a symptom of sin which is why I keep bringing it up. (NOT SAYING THOSE THAT ARE POOR ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE SINNERS...just again, we live in a sinful world and there will be death and disease and famine until Christ returns for HIS purposes...possibly to see people come to salvation...)
All these topics to me are just hypotheticals because in a sinful world, with sinful people in charge, nothing will ever work the way the model says it will.
One other thing--more on topic. Another reason I believe in giving money directly instead of through the government (besides that I disapprove of some of the places the government spends my money) is that you have to pay the "middle man". The more government power you give, the more people take your money before it goes to the people who truly need it. Seems wasteful to me...
Hmmm.. I never thought about the middle man aspect of it. I wonder why Canada's system evolved the way it did while the American system was so different. Anybody know?
That's awesome about your FIL's trip! It's great to hear those kind of reports!
Over Christmas, it dawned on me that we likely have a misunderstanding about where I stand in terms of governmental systems. Perhaps we don't but I'll mention it anyways! I see socialism as an economic idea, like capitalism. I would not say that the US government was capitalist. Instead, the US is a democratic republic who's government happens to follow capitalist ideas (or used to! :) )
Canada I would describe as a democratic constitutional monarchy with an economy based on a mix of capitalist and socialist ideas. The governments you were talking about in Africa, I would describe as tyrannies or one party systems (the word escapes me at the moment) who happen to follow some economic socialist ideas.
In other words, I have no sympathy for governments who promote one party rule, which would include communists but there are others, or tyrants or any other systems were by money is mismanaged and people are denyed their voice- although I'm sure we can all agree that that happens all too often in our own systems.
Anyways, I hope this makes things a little clearer.
That was a lot of reading since I haven't been around lately! (Sorry, Kimberly, but sometimes I'm too overwhelmed by the topics/questions and like to wait until I've heard others talk about it first;) But good stuff! :) I've actually been meaning to do a post for a while about how Democrats and Republicans actually want some of the same things and have some of the same complaints (or reasons behind their complaints).
Re: morality, I think that although socialism seems moral because it involves giving to people who are needy and trying to make things equal for all people, I think the free market is actually more moral because people give of their own accord rather than being forced to give. I think giving should be voluntary, just like God wants us to give with a joyful heart and out of our own will. Like someone here said, it blesses both the giver and the receiver, and I think that's how God wants it to be (I hope that doesn't sound arrogant!) You can't force people into doing anything; they have to choose to do so. Even God doesn't force people to choose Him. The causes you want to give to are noble causes, but I don't think everyone should HAVE to give to them. You should be able to contribute to what you want to contribute to. Like how HM said she might have to contribute to things like Planned Parenthood. Plenty of people might think that's a noble cause, but she doesn't, so she shouldn't be forced to contribute to it. What about when the government starts forcing us to contribute to things like gambling and prostitution or pornography b/c it's a noble cause (e.g. people need entertainment; it provides jobs/helps the economy; etc.)? I know that's an extreme and unlikely example, but I'm just saying it isn't fair for one group of people to decide how everyone spends their money. We will be blessed when we choose to give, not when our money is taken by the government and redistributed as they determine (often inefficiently, as HM pointed out).
Oh, I was also gonna say regarding the government providing everything... I can see in myself the natural tendency to get lazy and apathetic when I don't have enough responsibility/motivation to do things on my own (if I don't have to do something, I don't!), so I'm sure it works on a larger scale too. And if the government's providing something, why should I work to provide it for myself, even if I can? This is just a small example, but look at the digital converter box we all need to update our TVs. You're allowed up to 2 $40 coupon cards (provided by the federal government), and I know people who have taken both even though they don't need them (in fact, don't need either), because the government is offering them. And why shouldn't they, since they offered? But what if we had to pay for it ourselves? We might only get it if we needed it, and we might work harder to get it. When it's given by the government, we forget that there really is money coming from somewhere/someone who has to pay for it. Yes, the government can just print more money, but they devalues the money we already have. I feel like it's kind of like a credit card -- when I use a credit card (which I do often, unfortunately), I can't clearly see where the money is coming from. It feels like "free money" but in fact isn't at all. With the interest that is added to it when I don't pay it off immediately, it adds up fast! Now, many people are much wiser than I am, and they do understand that the money comes from somewhere and act more responsibly with their credit cards. But judging by the massive debt in our society/country (both on a government level and on an individual level), I'd say most people do not. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that this breeds laziness, as well as increased debt and reliance on the government (just look at the bailouts for a bigger example -- plenty of companies could make money on their own, but why would they if the government might offer it to them? I'm sad to say, I might do the same thing, which is why it shouldn't even be an option).
Very good points CB! And welcome back! I was going to ask you if you were still reading here and then you show up! Excellent!
I think the government offered coupons for people because they were forcibly changing the way people received TV and it would disproportionally effect poor people- older TVs, no cable, less money to buy a box etc. I wouldn't concider this in the same category as bailing out the banks (which, by the way, isn't "socialism" in my mind- "socialism would be the government owning the banks or strictly regulating them in the first place.)
Anyways... :)
Re: CB's morality comments
I think you have a higher estimation of the human race than I do! I guess I just don't trust that there will be enough people giving in order to meet the needs. For example, in our case, we're having trouble getting the help that we need because everyone is busy working (which is good. I'm not saying that working is bad.) Thankfully Josh has a good job. I don't know what a poorer family would do in our situation. Anyways, yes, I totally agree that people get more out of it when they give, and I certainly encourage giving, I just don't trust enough people to do it! Especially with this latest banking crisis, it seems very apparent how much greed there is in the world; people making decisions without thinking about their long term effect at all. As to the govenment choosing, at least it's the majority of the population that gets to decide where the money goes (or at least that's the idea!) In Canada, the government covers TONS of programs, Christian and secular, but I guess we don't have such big programs as Planned Parenthood because abortion is through the regular health system so that really isn't an issue. But then again, my viewpoint on abortion is likely different than yours as well! :)
Yes, I'm here. :) But I wasn't for a long time, it seems! ;)
I know the coupons aren't the same as the bailout, but it was an example of something the government shouldn't be handling (in my opinion), and it's all over the news lately, so that's why I mentioned it. :)
As for having a higher opinion of the human race than you do, I don't know that I agree with that. :) Maybe you're right that, if given the opportunity, people wouldn't give enough to provide for everyone, but everyone's not being provided for already. You can argue it's because of lack of government intervention, or you can argue that it's too much government intervention, or something else all together. I would argue that in some ways you have a higher estimation of the human race, because you think the government could take care of more than I do. I believe they can't, due to inefficiency (not that that's all their fault, though -- it's unreasonable for us to think the federal government could know so much to take care of everything, as diverse as the country is) and corruption (lots of power is corruptive!). Also, you say you don't trust people to give, but you do trust the majority to make the right decision on all the issues? I don't know; I guess you could argue either way (or either one of us over-estimating the human race). And how do you know if you don't give people a chance? I feel like if things aren't working, the answer is always more help from the government, but we never try it out with less to see what happens. It could be that people might rise up to the challenge and take care of each other if they weren't so dependent on the government or annoyed with the government and people taking advantage of the government's benefits, etc. In fact, I've heard of many examples of people actually getting more done by helping each other than through the government's help (e.g. cleanup in New Orleans).
I guess when I think about whether or not people will give adequately, I'm not thinking about just now in history, I'm thinking about all the way back to the start of the industrial revolution- when people started to live farther from their families and needing to rely on others for help. Most of the changes that have occured since the horrible and sickening living conditions that people had then are because of the government stepping in. Children's working hours and age limits. Adult working hour limits. The idea of a living wage. Access to schooling. Free education. Health care for anyone other than the upper class. Limits on when alchol can be sold, and how much, and at what price. Fix prices on milk and bread.
All these things are government control but I am SO glad that we have them and that people fought to bring such "socialist" ideas.
oh sorry, I hit send before I finished my thought.
I guess my thought is that if there was a need for the government programs then, people were not stepping into the void and helping enough back then. I know that the argument can be made that people didn't realize how bad things were, but documents from that time tend to contradict it. No Jane Austin didn't have a good grasp on all that was evil in the world, but many others did (not that she's from the worst of it, she's from the beginning of it, but anyways..)
Perhaps now people would be willing to give enough, but again I really don't think so. And if you're going to go full capitalist, how much of what has been built (for example, public schooling) do we do away with?
Post a Comment