Middle Class America

[Josh]

I don't often get into heated political/ economic debates, but one discussion I've had with my co-workers from time to time is the question of "what economic standard should our government and culture be encouraging."

As it stands, I see the middle class dwindling and the wealth ending up in the hands of a few with increasing levels of poverty.

I have a firm bias, however, that the middle class is what has traditionally made the U.S. great. And I think that economic policies shoud favor the middle, working class.

I'm not saying it's wrong to be rich per se, but I am in favor of higher taxes for those who make more, even if those folks are "driving the economy". That's because my perspective mostly has to do not with economic practicality but with morality.

I think that middle class folks know the value of things, but not the despair of poverty. They work for what they get, instead of profiting excessively from others' work. Their work is meaningful because they are compensated fairly.

I could go on, but the reason I'm posting this is because yesterday I discovered the perfect "proof text" from Scripture to support my position!!! (I'm being just a tad silly, here, of course)

Check this out... I love this passage!

Proverbs 30:8b-9

...give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.

Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, 'Who is the LORD ?'
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.

[robin]

Hi Josh,
I feel compelled to challenge you here. Is it the job of, or should the government discriminate against individuals based on their economical status? Does not the bible speak against this?

Leviticus 19:15
15 "'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Now I realize that this passage is likely talking about legal matters, but it makes a good point. Our government should not be distinguishing between the rich and poor among us, but be willing to treat us all fairly in all matters. This is one of the reasons I support both the flat tax and fair tax systems. Neither distinguish between rich and poor, but still are set up in a way in which the affluent will proportionally pay more in taxes.

Jesus said " For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

God is well qualified enough to judge correctly in these matters. I prefer that we leave it up to him. I personally feel that an over taxing government is one of the main obstacle to a charitable society.

[Josh]

So, my main point, opinions on taxes notwithstanding, was the idea that individuals who know "neither poverty nor riches" have the best chance of creating a healthy society.

If that is the case, then why wouldn't a government want, through various policies, to specifically encourage the health of the middle class?

I'm not saying make it impossible to be rich, but, as Scripture indicates, very few people can resist the corruption of wealth.

What makes this discussion difficult is that we are a) Christians and b) living in a democracy.

How much should we attempt to influence our government to reflect our Christian values?

On the one hand, the government cannot and should not replace the Church. I agree with you that I wish the Church would be the primary source of help to those in need. However, we as citizens of the United States do in some degree decide the policies of our government.

It's my understanding that a growing divide between rich and poor has never been good for any society. I think the verses I quoted from Proverbs partly explain why.

I think the sentiment in your quote from Leviticus speaks more to legal matters (as you noted) than economic policy. The Hebrews emphatically didn't have a laissez-faire free-market capitalist system. Their system stipulated outrageous and unprecedented benefits for the impoverished (the year of jubilee, etc..) As to Jesus' quote about "what is required" I don't know that what he's saying is totally God's domain. Why not emulate that way of thinking in government to some degree if possible?

[robin]

So, my main point, opinions on taxes notwithstanding, was the idea that individuals who know "neither poverty nor riches" have the best chance of creating a healthy society.

If that is the case, then why wouldn't a government want, through various policies, to specifically encourage the health of the middle class?

Because as it stands now, our government thrives upon people who depend on the government to meet their basic needs. Most politicians, especially those on the left, continue to be elected on platforms of increased spending on welfare programs and give aways. All we need to do is look to the current race for the Presidency. Both Hillary, and Barak have proposed billions in new social programs, none of which I see rebuilding the middle class (so called free health care, and free Collage education).

It's my understanding that a growing divide between rich and poor has never been good for any society. I think the verses I quoted from Proverbs partly explain why.

I agree with this statement, but before we can address the problem we must determine what caused this to happen if the first place. Perhaps you could share with me your opinion on what has caused this. The way I see it is like this. because all of our vital industries have been over regulated and over taxed, businesses are not able to compete in a global market, so out of necessity these industries move their labor force over seas. I would also place much of the blame on labor unions that drove up wages so high that many of our auto makes and steel companies faced the prospect of going bankrupt or laying off tens of thousands of employees here in America and moving these jobs overseas. If the government wants to do something to stop this problem, they should work to create a business environment where industries would be better off the keep these jobs here.

As to Jesus' quote about "what is required" I don't know that what he's saying is totally God's domain. Why not emulate that way of thinking in government to some degree if possible?

I'm not sure what you mean by "God's domain", but is it your opinion that god would be pleased with the forceful taking of a rich mans wealth in order to give to the poor? Or does God desire that each man give according to his hearts desire?

[Josh]

In my humble, insufficiently informed opinion, the decline of the middle class is probably brought about by both an increasingly large welfare state (of which I share many of your concerns)and by unchecked wealth made at the expense of others less fortunate.

I do have a fundamental distrust of wealth and riches. I think Scripture shares that general bias, though not without exception.

Again, I'm curious about your thoughts about the effect that wealth or poverty has on a person's soul.

And before saying that it merely depends on the person, I think these factors do have an effect even on folks who have some resiliency to resist corruption.

The proverb I quoted above is from a man who doesn't trust that he'll respond well to either riches or poverty. I think he's everyman.

I could quote here all the warnings to the rich contained in Scripture (especially the New Testament), but I don't have the time. Perhaps it's not necessary to make the point.

I'm not sure what you mean by "God's domain", but is it your opinion that god would be pleased with the forceful taking of a rich mans wealth in order to give to the poor? Or does God desire that each man give according to his hearts desire?

I don't know about 'pleased', but I think that if God could in some sense have been said to grant Emperial Rome the right to tax, then I think one could argue that it is in the pervue of a nation to do such things.

You've got to understand that when it comes to the economic spectrum, if communism was a 1 and socialism a 3 and laissez-faire free-market capitalism a 10, I'd probably be advocating about a 6, so I agree with you more than it might seem. I just think there is a place for the government to do some tinkering. I just think the tinkering should encourage as many folks to be able to join "the middle class" as possible.

[robin]

One question before I continue. How would you define middle class, by american standards, or global standards? Many of those we call poor in America are really quite wealthy compared to global standards. Also, I think we must keep in mind that many of those we consider poor are in this condition because of their own chioces, and not because of "unchecked wealth". You see, I don't think that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world (zero sum game), but rather that wealth is created, and conversly is destroyed by over taxing and over regulation.

[sonlyte]

wow, interesting discussion...

I keep wondering if the desperate need for security in our culture may be at the heart of the decline of the middle class. Not entirely sure of why, just a feeling.

[Josh]

The more I think about this topic, the less enthused I am to have my name behind it

It all depends on which perspective I'm looking at this subject.

I have to blame/ pass off/ credit J.R.R. Tolkien with the basic sentiment the "the middle class is best". I was reminded recently where I first got the idea from.

Honestly, I was coming at this mostly from a historian's perspective, not first and foremost from a Christian perspective. Of course, in the Kingdom of God we are called to a standard and values far above general economic/ social concepts.

I've reached a bit of a wall here with this, but I hope it has produced some worthwhile reflections (as I seems it has to some degree- thanks for your responses)

[nathaniel]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but I just read this recently and found it very interesting and worth a read. It's from the memoirs of Marriner S. Eccles, who was chairman of the federal reserve under Franklin Roosevelt from 1934-1948, about what he saw as the cause of the great depression.


As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.]

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.
That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.

[Josh]

in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy.

Nate, seems like this is the crux of Eccles' point, which, in a roundabout way leads me to some further reflections.

Do you folks (I'm thinking especially Robin and Nate, but anyone else too) think there should be a difference between how wealthy individuals are taxed as opposed to wealthy corporations/ businesses?

For example, I hear what Robin was saying about it not being "fair" to tax the wealthy at a higher percentage than others. It seems like a punishment for being successful.

However, when it comes to wealthy corporations, I think I would be in favor of higher tax rates. Corporations shouldn't have the same "rights" as individuals imo. The most greed and financial oppression comes from corporations precisely because they are soul-less entity that somehow get treated like sentient beings.

Also, I heard Palin railing against, to paraphrase, "corporate greed on wall street" (as any smart politician, Dem. or Rep. needs to do right now), but other than some handslapping of gas companies*, what exactly are Republicans proposing to do about "corporate greed"?

*this talk of reigning in gas companies seems like it's just a temporary expedient to curry voter support. I used the term handslapping because many feel that Republicans are just trying to make people think that they're doing something about the gas crisis, when in reality they will continue to support hands-off policies that lead to the problem in the first place.

[robin]

Do you folks (I'm thinking especially Robin and Nate, but anyone else too) think there should be a difference between how wealthy individuals are taxed as opposed to wealthy corporations/ businesses?

Corporations and businesses are there only for the benefits of the stockholders, employees and owners, all of which are people. If the government takes more money from corporations and wealthy businesses, the only ones being hurt are those mentioned above. Higher taxes on corporation will translate into lower wages, fewer jobs, and weaker benefits. So my answer is no. We should treat corporations in the same manner as individuals, and that includes elimination tax loop holes that are commonly taken advantage of by corporations.

Also, I heard Palin railing against, to paraphrase, "corporate greed on wall street" (as any smart politician, Dem. or Rep. needs to do right now), but other than some handslapping of gas companies*, what exactly are Republicans proposing to do about "corporate greed"?

Josh, I'm rather surprised at your bias here. Are you assuming that corporate greed is a republican problem only? I have tried and tried to make this point but am am starting to wonder if anyone is paying attention. The current problems we are facing in our economy is the fault of both parties, and in the current mortgage crisis most of the blame lies at the feet of Democrats. Just ask Bill Clinton, who only a week ago said that it was the democratic legislators who have worked to block Fannie, and Freddy reforms that were proposed by both him when he was president, and the republicans from 2006-current.

I have already provided a copy of John McCain's statements in 2005 attempting to address corporate greed in Freddy and Fannie, but let me give them again.

Here is what John McCain said on may 25, 2005:
"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

So my question is what was the Democratic response to this legislation?

[robin]

However, when it comes to wealthy corporations, I think I would be in favor of higher tax rates. Corporations shouldn't have the same "rights" as individuals imo. The most greed and financial oppression comes from corporations precisely because they are soul-less entity that somehow get treated like sentient beings.

One more thought here. How can a soulless corporation be greedy. Is not greed a human trait? As a matter of fact greed seems to be a distinctively human trait. So now it is not a corporate problem, It is a human problem. You see these are the types of arguments made from the left that make no sense when they are thought out. They make good sound bites, but not good sense.

Robin

[Josh]

We should treat corporations in the same manner as individuals, and that includes elimination tax loop holes that are commonly taken advantage of by corporations.

So I hear this right, did you mean eliminating tax loopholes? (that you are in favor of such elimination?)

One more thought here. How can a soulless corporation be greedy. Is not greed a human trait? As a matter of fact greed seems to be a distinctively human trait. So now it is not a corporate problem, It is a human problem. You see these are the types of arguments made from the left that make no sense when they are thought out. They make good sound bites, but not good sense.

Of course, greed comes ultimately only from humans* and is not inherent in systems. It's just that corporations promote passing the moral buck. It can be easier for individuals in a corporation to shrug off moral responsibility as if it's someone else's job- they're not there to ask what's right, fair, or moral, they are just there to serve the interests of the company, and to please the CEO. And the leaders of corporations are granted more power than an individual on his own would ever have, and so have more chance to become more corrupted. It seems to me that corporations are more likely to prioritize success over morality because of tremendous group pressure to do so.


Robin-

Thanks for the snippet from McCain. That helps a bit. So, you're saying that one of McCain strategies for dealing with wall street greed is to reform the regulators. So, in super laymen's terms, is he saying that big corporations essentially need more accurate audits? Doesn't this go against the grain of the anti-regulation message that Republicans tend to represent?



*and evil spirits, but that's another matter.

[robin]

So I hear this right, did you mean eliminating tax loopholes? (that you are in favor of such elimination?)

yes. I'm certainly in favor of eliminating tax loopholes, so long as we have a fair and equitable tax system. My idea would be to have a flat tax 10-15% for for all tax filing entities, meaning individuals and corporations. Or, we could eliminate all payroll taxes and adopt a consumption tax (sales tax). The wealthy person purchasing a Lexus will pay more in taxes than the one buying a Chrysler. ;D

Of course, greed comes ultimately only from humans* and is not inherent in systems. It's just that corporations promote passing the moral buck. It can be easier for individuals in a corporation to shrug off moral responsibility as if it's someone else's job- they're not there to ask what's right, fair, or moral, they are just there to serve the interests of the company, and to please the CEO. And the leaders of corporations are granted more power than an individual on his own would ever have, and so have more chance to become more corrupted. It seems to me that corporations are more likely to prioritize success over morality because of tremendous group pressure to do so.

So we agree on this much. Greed is a human trait, and certain conditions will magnify this trait. But what are we to say of the vast majority of corporations that are not greedy, and act responsibly, and compassionately. The two corporations that I am part of certainly are not greedy, so why should our (my families) business suffer unfairly because the public sees a few bad apples? Should we punish all churches because there are greedy pastors?

You see the problem is this. Greed, as a human problem, effects all areas of society, not just corporations. By imposing penalties on all corporations, you will only hurt those who are honest and play by the rules. The greedy humans who run corporations will continue to find way to hoard their wealth, even by dishonest means. Take gun control for example. Are you in favor of outlawing all guns because some evil people have used them to do harm? I assume your answer is no, but please correct me if I'm wrong. You know that outlawing guns would have the net result in leaving guns in the hands of only those who break the law and use guns for evil. We all know that is a bad idea.

Thanks for the snippet from McCain. That helps a bit. So, you're saying that one of McCain strategies for dealing with wall street greed is to reform the regulators. So, in super laymen's terms, is he saying that big corporations essentially need more accurate audits? Doesn't this go against the grain of the anti-regulation message that Republicans tend to represent?

John McCain and most conservative are fundamentally de-regulators. But de-regulation does not mean that we can turn a blind eye on corruption. This is why I respect McCain as much as I do. He was able to resist his natural tendencies, which are very good, in order to address a problem that few others were willing to address. Especially those on the left who were benefiting from the corruption. Like Sen. Dodd (Democrat) who received a sweetheart deal from Freddie on a number of home loans. I thing the interest rates were less than 3%. By the way Sen. Dodd chairs the oversight committee that was in charge of Freddie and Fannie. That is where the reform bill was killed. It never made it to the floor for a vote. But back to McCain. He has shown a willingness to change if it is what is best for the country. And as we can now all see, he was correct. IT is not fair for the left to say that John McCain favors all deregulation and that is why we are in this position. Just read his words. He wanted more over-site of the financial institutions not less. If other around him would have listened, we may not be in the mess we are in now.

God bless,
Robin

[nathaniel]

A few quick thoughts and op's.

The wealth and income is not being distributed equally: The top 1% have 90% of the wealth and 50% of the income in America.

IMO, Reagonomics/deregulation/free markets has proven themselves not to work, be dangerous, and have there limitations respectively.

We have checks and balances in our government to limit power and corruption, why not have them in the market place. To limit wealth, stop monopolies, stop companies from growing so big they threaten our (and the worlds) entire economy, etc.

It’s no coincidence to me that only 10 years after the destruction (deregulation) of the Glass-Steagall Act www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
, which was put into place after the Great Depression to prevent similar circumstances, that we now find ourselves in the current situation.

IMO, Republican/conservatives/Right wingers (whatever label you want to use) need to own this. There is a lot of blame to go around, agreed: republican, democrat, wall street, main street (By the way, if I here “wall street/main street” one more time I’m going to light something on fire). But, the ideology that created this (even if imposed by a democrat i.e. Bill Clinton) was one that is clearly a mantra of the republican party. I truly don’t understand how they can shirk responsibility here. I’m not trying to say that anyone is a bad person, I just think this philosophy has shown itself to not work.

I think Government can (and should) do certain things better than the free market in some cases. Government isn’t always bad. And the government is accountable to the people and should work on our behalf. (Although government certainly has its limitations too).


Josh,

to your original response.

Oct 6, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -8 Josh said:

in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy.

Nate, seems like this is the crux of Eccles' point, which, in a roundabout way leads me to some further reflections.

I would maybe add that, the wealth wasn't being spread equitably. And through higher wages and/or taxes it would've filtered some of that wealth back into the system.

Oct 6, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -8 Josh said:

Do you folks (I'm thinking especially Robin and Nate, but anyone else too) think there should be a difference between how wealthy individuals are taxed as opposed to wealthy corporations/ businesses?

My Knee-jerk reaction to that is yes.

Oct 6, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -8 Josh said:

For example, I hear what Robin was saying about it not being "fair" to tax the wealthy at a higher percentage than others. It seems like a punishment for being successful.

I still don't see some sort of progressive tax on people as being unfair, or as "punishment" for being successful.

For one I don't think anyone would ever say to themselves, "You know what, I don't think I'm going to try and make that extra 10 millions dollars because I'm going to be punished by having a 15% higher tax rate."

I sense that there is also this underlying assumption with this philosophy that everyone starts at square one. We all start with equal opportunity, and those who are successful worked hard and made the right decisions, and those who are unsuccessful are there because of their lack of effort and bad choices. And while I'm all for personal responsibility, and getting your just due, it's just not that simple IMO. It's much easier to be wealthy if you come from wealth, and much easier to end up in poverty if you come from poverty.

Also the tax burden on someone making $30,000 a year at a 15% tax is much greater than someone making who makes $300,000 a year. And that burden (or lack there of) is only magnified the more extreme you go.

And furthermore, those who accumulate great wealth are benefitting from the type of society we have: A free market, a stable government, an educated population, etc. So when someone has disproportionate success from our system I see no problem with them putting a disproportionate reinvestment back into supporting that system. Plus, one could see it as a way of promoting a spirit of equality, sort of a "we're all in this together" policy.

Oct 6, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -8 Josh said:

However, when it comes to wealthy corporations, I think I would be in favor of higher tax rates. Corporations shouldn't have the same "rights" as individuals imo. The most greed and financial oppression comes from corporations precisely because they are soul-less entity that somehow get treated like sentient beings

Agreed. This idea that corporations have the same rights as people is a little bit "sketchball" to me.

Oct 6, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -8 Josh said:

Also, I heard Palin railing against, to paraphrase, "corporate greed on wall street" (as any smart politician, Dem. or Rep. needs to do right now), but other than some handslapping of gas companies*, what exactly are Republicans proposing to do about "corporate greed"?

*this talk of reigning in gas companies seems like it's just a temporary expedient to curry voter support. I used the term handslapping because many feel that Republicans are just trying to make people think that they're doing something about the gas crisis, when in reality they will continue to support hands-off policies that lead to the problem in the first place.

Agreed.


This is obviously a huge, complex, and fascinating topic. I wish I could say more, but I'm strapped for time, I just had to get a couple thoughts off my chest.

[robin]

Hi Nate,
Just areal quick thought here. First of all I would like to thank you for your honesty. Most democrats and liberals believe exactly what you just said. However, I wish you would just complete your thought and outright say that you desire that we become socialists/communists. There is no more hiding it among Democrats/liberals. Republicans and conservatives still believe that individuals are best suited to decide how to spend their own money(capitalism), and liberals believe that the government is best suited to distribute the money as it sees fit(socialism). Very scary! This is why you and others on the left are supporting Obama. You believe he is a socialist, and you like that.

So for all of you on the fence, ask yourself this question.

Am I comfortable with socialism/communism?

Since socialism/communism puts us in bondage to the government ,as a Christian, should I be willing to put myself under the authority of an un-godly power like the government?

Did God create us to be free? Or did he create us to be slaves of a government that will run our lives?

Freedom, as I believe god intended for us, will have to result of thing not alway being equitable. We are imperfect humans after all. things Like un-equal wealth distribution will be happen, but who cares? As Christians should our desire be wealth? Should we covet our neighbors wealth? Of course not. All the hand wringing over wealth distribution entirely misses the point. Instead of worrying about who has all the money, we should be primarily concerned with how we are handling what we do have even if it is very little.

This is why capitalism far better than socialism/communism. Capitalism allows for the individuals to be charitable, therefore allowing the love of Christ to be seen in the good deeds of those who give. Socialism restricts charity, and the government determines how charitable dollars will be spent, therefore giving the glory to the government.

God bless,
Robin

[michelle]

Oct 10, 2008 7:20:08 GMT -8 robin said:

Most democrats and liberals believe exactly what you just said. However, I wish you would just complete your thought and outright say that you desire that we become socialists/communists.

I have read all the posts that have gone on in this thread and the other political thread and I've been mostly mum until now. I just feel that I have to respond to this comment in particular.

While I very much appreciate your passion for your convictions, I think this comment is an unfair extrapolation. IMO, this is like someone saying to you that they wish you would just say that you think we should become anarchists, which I also think would be extremely unfair.

I do appreciate that you modified your post to defend your position of capitalism. When I first read your post it ended with, "Am I comfortable with socialism/communism?" I think the expansion of your post shows that you are being mindful of needing to present your opinion on the issue, although I'm sure we could have guessed where you'd stand on it.