Comments on: Are We There Yet?

By: Nathan M

Nathan M — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:10:54 +0000

Not to drag this on, but I would like to explain what I meant. First of all, Nathan, I did not write the article, so I do not have to defend how the quote is used. I was merely wondering what your objection to the statistic was. I do think the meaning was fairly clear, especially if you follow the link to the report, but that’s a matter of opinion.
James, sorry if my reasoning was confusing. You said the example of the Amish is a reason against “forced giving (via taxes)and inconsistent with Scripture.” My response was that Scripture does teach us to pay taxes and obey the governing authority over us unless it goes against God’s Word. Therefore, your statement that taxes are unbiblical is incorrect. Secondly, I believe the Amish are an example of Christians living out their faith within society. While they are exempt from paying Social Security tax because one can be exempt from this on religious grounds, they do pay all other taxes. When Jesus, Paul and James talk about giving the focus is on the need for followers of Christ to give sacrifically. No mention is made of taxes, so I believe that Christians need to stop using taxes as an excuse for not fulfilling the Golden Rule.

By: Nathan Bubna

Nathan Bubna — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:15:40 +0000

Nevermind. I just scanned my previous reply (“i do not favor…”). By that i meant that i don’t really have any ideological bias to either capitalism or socialism. I consider both useful economic/governmental tools for different applications. Rooting for one of these ideologies to dominate in all levels of government and all sectors of the economy seems extremely foolish to me. Equally foolish is trying to run them in a “half and half” type scenario (like Medicare for the old subsidized by taxes on the capitalism left to the young). Using both tools in that way on the same industry and at the same level of government like that is a recipe for failure. The only way to use both together sensibly on one level/sector is to lay a socialist foundation that does not divide the population, and allow the rich to divide themselves by adding capitalistic support on top. A good example is policing. The government provides a baseline, but those with wealth are free to hire additional private security.

I do, however, have a strong ideological bias against centralized government. Local control is more democratic, more adaptive to local circumstances, more agile, less of a magnet for corruption (well, slightly), easier for people to escape when corrupt, and is more resilient against threats of all kinds. The federal government is the opposite of all those things. But don’t get me ranting…

By: Nathan Bubna

Nathan Bubna — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:59:42 +0000

Why do think i would think that? I do favor capitalism, for many aspects of the economy. I don’t however, favor capitalism in at least the areas of *local run* police, fire and healthcare (though all such services should have options to contract out non-personnel services to private, capitalist endeavors). I believe such services are better run by municipal and county governments and funded by taxes from many levels of government. Of course, healthcare is not currently run that way. I just wish it were.

By: James

James — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:14:14 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with favoring capitalism over socialism, Nathan.

By: Nathan Bubna

Nathan Bubna — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:04:24 +0000

No, i said your quote of the statistic is wacked. 40% higher likelihood of death is a meaningless statement, because everyone (100%) dies. You must add some context, as any statistic minus full and proper context equals falsehood. Give a timeframe “die within ___” or “die due to ___” or something, otherwise, it’s wack. Sorry to say.

And no, i do not favor capitalism or socialism. You read that into my post. What i am opposed to is the attempt to combine both on the federal level, which leads to both being ineffective price controls. I espoused no solution in my first post, just complaints. Personally, i would favor county-run or city-run universal, tax-funded healthcare, with federal or state funding optional and no restrictions on coexistant private competition of either the charitable or capitalistic varieties. But the powers that be seem to prefer clumsy, lobbyist-written state/federal half-measures to giving up power to the lower echelons of govt. And i usually feel like the only one out there who sees scale of systems as the primary issue when considering implementations. Everyone else thinks “small vs big” govt, while all i can see is in terms of broad vs local. So i’m not optimistic about the chances for my favored solutions.

Oh, and you’re right about taxes being equally consistent with Scripture. “My money” is God’s, if the authorities He puts over me tax me or if i give it away, either way it’s His to have. I don’t see a problem either way.

By: James

James — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:58:29 +0000

Very confusing reasoning.

By: Jordan Green

Jordan Green — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:23:51 +0000

The other difference would be that national polls indicate the majority of people are in favor of health care, where it wasn’t a major issue 16 years ago.

But yeah, you might be right about that…I was 12 years old, so I was more concerned with ninjas, candy, and Little League.

By: Nathan M

Nathan M — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:10:55 +0000

James,
Thanks for your reply, but I must disagree with your statement. I have heard the argument that when the government stops taxing so high then Christians will have money to give to help others. However, I don’t believe that this is consistent with Scripture. Jesus said that we are “to render to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21). Also, Paul states that Christians are to obey the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1). Therefore “forced giving” is consistent with Scripture. While I believe that the tax burden needs to reasonable, and there can be discussion about what the best level is, Paul urges the churches to give and makes no reference to taxation (I Cor. 16:1-2, II Cor. 8:1-15). Therefore I believe that the Church needs to care for each other and for the poor regardless of the current tax rate.

By: James

James — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:16:36 +0000

Nathan M, your example of people willingly giving of their resources is more evidence, to me, that forced giving (via tax money) is neither advisable nor consistent with Scripture.

By: John Pattison

John Pattison — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:08:08 +0000

I was talking with a loved one, a relative, the other day about just this point. He is a Republican and a strong opponent of just about anything Obama does or has in his mind to do. This relative was frustrated that Obama has made this an urgent priority and that many of the forty amendments offered by congressional Republicans to the health care bills have been nonstarters. I am sympathetic. I think a bi-partisan solution to the health care crisis would be preferable. But, I said to my relative, isn’t there an extent to which Republicans in Washington have had their chance? I mean, they didn’t do anything under Reagan or Bush I. Clinton was in the White House in the nineties, but Republicans had the majority in Congress from 1994-2006 and the White House to boot for six of those twelve years. Where were their solutions?

My point is, even if this hasn’t been a political priority for previous administrations and congresses, it has been an actual priority for, like, three decades. There are any number of elements of Obama’s plan that I don’t like – I fear and resent “big government” as much as (though no more than) “big corporations” – but something needs to be done. And now.