We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. - Winston Churchill
nice quote. both sides would agree. But the issue at hand for Christians is not whether or not we should favor taxes or not, the Bible is pretty clear that we ought to "give back to Caesar" whatever is his. The issue is which Kingdom are we living in, and do we really believe what the Gospel says about living in the kingdom of God? The implication in Jesus' command and throughout the gospels is that if we are preoccupied with paying Caesar, then we will not be able to give ourselves fully to God. We should hope that America prospers but hope infinitely more that God's Kingdom prospers. The two aren't necessarily synonymous.
Excerpt from an article from website I read often (truthdig.com)...shows what "kingdom" Wes is talking about, the Kingdom of MONEY and POSSESSIONS that we've reaped. Very interesting piece by Plaff
"The social transformation of the United States during the 1950s and 1960s was phenomenal, due to the education of the population, thanks to the GI Bill of Rights, and to new popular housing and innovative enterprise. In continental Europe, the early postwar decades are still commonly referred to as the “glorious years.”
What brought the Western economies from that to the present world crisis was, in my view, a revolutionary theory. The American business model was changed. At some point a consensus emerged in the academic community on a new business model. This demanded abandonment of the social concerns previously expected from business, and demanded from corporations the highest possible profits.
It advocated minimal taxation and political regulation, so as to produce the highest stockholder earnings possible. It said that a rationally perfected industrial economy must be based on maximized pursuit of self-interest, and would then automatically bring the greatest possible efficiency and return.
Maximum self-interest by management would impose maximum productivity at lowest possible wage cost from labor. Free trade and globalization would produce raw materials at lowest possible cost, and maximum sales income.
Ethical responsibility (beyond minimal legality) and civic obligation would be stripped from business as obstacles to maximized profit, which the theory claimed would in the long run automatically produce the best possible outcome for society as a whole. That is the world in which we have been living.
Now, to Midas.
In the June 19 issue of the (London) Times Literary Supplement, the Exeter University classicist Richard Seaford elaborates on an argument he first made in 2004 in a book called “Money and the Early Greek Mind.” This proposed that “the pivotal position of the Greeks” in the world culture of the period they dominated came largely from their invention of money.
Until money, an individual’s possible possessions had to be tangible, useful and necessarily limited enough to enjoy and control. One can directly possess only so much property, herds and ships, or enjoy only so much food, sex, honors, reputation and so on, before being satisfied (or sated). But you cannot possess too much money, because money is fungible, transferable, portable and theoretically unlimited in quantity.
Money thus isolates the individual because it removes him from the real world of relationships, property and useful things, to the world of potentially unlimited possession of something whose essential characteristic is that in itself it is useless. It destroys limits in society and in human relations because it places the individual, or a society, in a position, as Seaford says, of “predatory isolation.”
This was the plight of Midas. He could not drink, eat, touch or love, because anything and everything he touched turned to gold. He bore the worst of curses—which he had himself invited. He begged for mercy from the god Dionysus, who lifted the curse. Who will lift the curse from us?"
Our hope, "...while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearaning of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own eager to go what is good." Titus 2:13-14
Prosperity was what enabled people like the Gaines/Lampi parents to launch their children into their future to be what they wanted to be. Prosperity is not a sin. It is the ability to provide, to give, to use to build up. It is an enabler to allow people to reach their highest goals. Most of America's prosperity comes not from the wall street corporations, but from the small businesses like SES or Tait Grinding. The greedy people on wall street are who make the news. History has proven that to offer people the opportunity to reach for the highest goals they can achieve, you need to allow them the opportunity to grow, be prosperous and use their prosperity to help others by investing in non-profits or small businesses. My generations Obama (JF Kennedy) was a democrat who was also considered a liberal in our day. He brought the country out of a slide by putting money back into tthe hands of the private sector which in turned, increased the revenue taken in by the government. There was disciple in those days for the government not to outspend the revenues thus eliminating the need to borrow to fund our debt. History is a great teacher. What civilization has increased its' output/productivity by increasing the money they took from its citizens who were the ones dependent upon for productivity? I am not so sure I want the US government to run what was once ran by the private sector. They have a track record of driving programs into the ground with astonding debt. Look at Medicare/Medicade, Social Security. The younger generation who is currently paying into social security will not see any of that money. I would prefer to allow you to invest that 8% (I think it is 8%) into an investment you could control and know that when you retire, the money is there. I am sadden that you will not see social security and your parents will see. So why do I think the government can do a better job of managing healthcare than the private sector. The independent COB has already indicated that the proposal on the table will cost us, not save us money as is being commumnicated.
Bottom line, no civilization has taxed itself into prosperity.
i love this 'history will judge' argument given by 'bushians' who offer no patience or time for somebody different/not white to do something. don't blame me, i voted for PALIN. Ha!
6 comments:
nice quote. both sides would agree. But the issue at hand for Christians is not whether or not we should favor taxes or not, the Bible is pretty clear that we ought to "give back to Caesar" whatever is his. The issue is which Kingdom are we living in, and do we really believe what the Gospel says about living in the kingdom of God? The implication in Jesus' command and throughout the gospels is that if we are preoccupied with paying Caesar, then we will not be able to give ourselves fully to God. We should hope that America prospers but hope infinitely more that God's Kingdom prospers. The two aren't necessarily synonymous.
Excerpt from an article from website I read often (truthdig.com)...shows what "kingdom" Wes is talking about, the Kingdom of MONEY and POSSESSIONS that we've reaped. Very interesting piece by Plaff
"The social transformation of the United States during the 1950s and 1960s was phenomenal, due to the education of the population, thanks to the GI Bill of Rights, and to new popular housing and innovative enterprise. In continental Europe, the early postwar decades are still commonly referred to as the “glorious years.”
What brought the Western economies from that to the present world crisis was, in my view, a revolutionary theory. The American business model was changed. At some point a consensus emerged in the academic community on a new business model. This demanded abandonment of the social concerns previously expected from business, and demanded from corporations the highest possible profits.
It advocated minimal taxation and political regulation, so as to produce the highest stockholder earnings possible. It said that a rationally perfected industrial economy must be based on maximized pursuit of self-interest, and would then automatically bring the greatest possible efficiency and return.
Maximum self-interest by management would impose maximum productivity at lowest possible wage cost from labor. Free trade and globalization would produce raw materials at lowest possible cost, and maximum sales income.
Ethical responsibility (beyond minimal legality) and civic obligation would be stripped from business as obstacles to maximized profit, which the theory claimed would in the long run automatically produce the best possible outcome for society as a whole. That is the world in which we have been living.
Now, to Midas.
In the June 19 issue of the (London) Times Literary Supplement, the Exeter University classicist Richard Seaford elaborates on an argument he first made in 2004 in a book called “Money and the Early Greek Mind.” This proposed that “the pivotal position of the Greeks” in the world culture of the period they dominated came largely from their invention of money.
Until money, an individual’s possible possessions had to be tangible, useful and necessarily limited enough to enjoy and control. One can directly possess only so much property, herds and ships, or enjoy only so much food, sex, honors, reputation and so on, before being satisfied (or sated). But you cannot possess too much money, because money is fungible, transferable, portable and theoretically unlimited in quantity.
Money thus isolates the individual because it removes him from the real world of relationships, property and useful things, to the world of potentially unlimited possession of something whose essential characteristic is that in itself it is useless. It destroys limits in society and in human relations because it places the individual, or a society, in a position, as Seaford says, of “predatory isolation.”
This was the plight of Midas. He could not drink, eat, touch or love, because anything and everything he touched turned to gold. He bore the worst of curses—which he had himself invited. He begged for mercy from the god Dionysus, who lifted the curse. Who will lift the curse from us?"
Our hope, "...while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearaning of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own eager to go what is good." Titus 2:13-14
Prosperity was what enabled people like the Gaines/Lampi parents to launch their children into their future to be what they wanted to be. Prosperity is not a sin. It is the ability to provide, to give, to use to build up. It is an enabler to allow people to reach their highest goals. Most of America's prosperity comes not from the wall street corporations, but from the small businesses like SES or Tait Grinding. The greedy people on wall street are who make the news. History has proven that to offer people the opportunity to reach for the highest goals they can achieve, you need to allow them the opportunity to grow, be prosperous and use their prosperity to help others by investing in non-profits or small businesses. My generations Obama (JF Kennedy) was a democrat who was also considered a liberal in our day. He brought the country out of a slide by putting money back into tthe hands of the private sector which in turned, increased the revenue taken in by the government. There was disciple in those days for the government not to outspend the revenues thus eliminating the need to borrow to fund our debt. History is a great teacher. What civilization has increased its' output/productivity by increasing the money they took from its citizens who were the ones dependent upon for productivity? I am not so sure I want the US government to run what was once ran by the private sector. They have a track record of driving programs into the ground with astonding debt. Look at Medicare/Medicade, Social Security. The younger generation who is currently paying into social security will not see any of that money. I would prefer to allow you to invest that 8% (I think it is 8%) into an investment you could control and know that when you retire, the money is there. I am sadden that you will not see social security and your parents will see. So why do I think the government can do a better job of managing healthcare than the private sector. The independent COB has already indicated that the proposal on the table will cost us, not save us money as is being commumnicated.
Bottom line, no civilization has taxed itself into prosperity.
and no one is trying to do that.
Gentlemen, to your corners. ;)
i love this 'history will judge' argument given by 'bushians' who offer no patience or time for somebody different/not white to do something. don't blame me, i voted for PALIN. Ha!
Post a Comment