Tag: wealth

The Unknown Unknown

I just saw the “The Unknown Unknown” – yeah. A bit delayed. But now, more than ever, I’m thinking about who we will give the keys to the front doors of the White House.

I’ve always thought that people like Donald Rumsfeld scare the lights out of a candle. Media has made him seem anti-social and driven by pure arrogance. Like his cohort Dick Cheney (who, in my opinion is a watered down version of Rumsfeld), he’s right and to hell with anyone who doesn’t agree. But with Rumsfeld, you can’t watch this film without appreciating the definite gravitas of the man.

By contrast, Cheney is a pure manipulator. All that matters is that he pulls off his political machinations convincingly enough so that the core believers still believe. With Rumsfeld, I can see the manipulation, but there is a prow-like determination that slices through argument and debate with something that feels like clarity. To be sure, it is Rumsfeld’s clarity; what else should he be concerned about; bolstered by cold, steel-minded analysis.

Through the crystal eyes of the news media, we saw Rumsfeld often wholly unapologetic and wrapped in this enigmatic double-speak philosophic (e.g., the unknown unknowns). He is parroted and ridiculed as a master of confabulation. He is tagged along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz as one of the chief architects of a disastrous war in Iraq, and the principle deconstructor of the image of American civil rights, post-911.

That’s what we do with our war leaders – celebrate them and hold them aloft when they win, criminalize them and bury their image when they lose. That’s what happened to Rumsfeld, who – aside from this film and a few public appearance – has tried to stay buried. Cheney, on the other hand, is a zombie – angry hands bursting out of the grave with yet another tirade about why he was right.

There’s a part of me that admires Rumsfeld. In the sharp contrast, Rumsfeld stands above as a true believer. Pure patriotism fuels his bubbling self-confidence and steadfast determination. You must admit, this is the kind of guy that you want in the foxhole with you. This is the kind of commander you want on the front line. This is the kind of person you want making tough decisions and pulling triggers when they need pulling. But that’s the front line. The seat of governance is another matter.

By the way, the soundtrack by Danny Elfman is freaking cool. Nice music to listen to with the news channel volume turned off.

Economic Hype and the Trickle Up Effect

Okay… I admit. I’m a serial commenter on various news sites (CNN, Huff, Washington Post). A recent segment that appeared on CNN bore this headline: Who’s winning the debt debate?

Need I summarize the topic? Essentially, the writer posits the question and out comes a gushing. One brilliant poster came up with this gem:

There will soon be no wealthy, no nothin’, brainiacs, if we don’t balance our budget. Take all the rich, hang them upside down, and shake all their money out of their pockets. That couldn’t cover the entitlement program at the rate it’s growing.

He couldn’t leave well enough alone, so he parroted yet another gem:

Quit spending more than you make! Can’t understand that?  Think the wealthy held a shotgun to our gov’t and told the gov’t to spend like more than we make?  QUIT SPENDING MORE THAN YOU MAKE. Right now the entitlements are the main drag on the economy, and taxing the rich ain’t going to stop the bleeding, wiseguy. Or don’t you read what the economists are saying?

Of course, the Tea Party ‘factoid’ parade is devoid of rational fact; no footnote that says personal debt and national debt are two completely different things. I doubt many of them ever heard Dick Cheney explain that  “Deficits don’t matter.” Nevertheless, I had to point out that trickle down (Reaganomics) never worked. Historical data proves that point. All low taxes ever did was let the greedy be more greedy.

Here’s Trickle UP Effect for you: support the masses and the masses will support all classes above them.

Failure of Ministry: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it (Part II)

In my previous post, I brought up a quote from the late Dr Adrian Pierce Rogers – known primarily by this snip: “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” In the previous post, demonstrated how Dr Rogers’ well known quote failed on two points. The first failure was how he chooses to define “socialism.” The United States, along with ALL successful industrialized nations, has a long history of supporting a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. In fact, isn’t is true that the two economic systems appear to support one another? Of course it is.

Second point of failure: Ministry

It is odd that Dr Rogers would try to redefine how public policy ought to serve the lower classes – the “poor” as he called it. He errs on so many levels – chief among them, his attempt to draw a line between capitalism and socialism; a line that ceased to exist (at least in this country) for nearly a century. But economics aside, his greatest failure is his contradiction against the Christian faith.

For those who are not familiar with his ministry, Dr. Rogers served three terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was a Southern Baptist pastor, and an author of several works well-known among Christian conservatives.  Rogers graduated from Stetson University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He eventually became the senior pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, a church with a membership of 29,000 by the time he retired in March 2005.

One would believe that a man of such esteemed pastoral credentials would follow scriptural examples of charitable giving. Instead, this man chose to tell a nation that “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” We know by other writings that his intent was purely political – to defame “liberals” who support welfare policies designed to help poor. But in the process, he makes a terrible, egregious error of faith.

Having read many of his sermons, I know that he had a penchant for quoting the Old Testament. I wonder if he ever got to Deuteronomy 14:28-29:

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.”

And Deuteronomy 15:7

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

There are dozens of passages like that throughout the OT, but I prefer the New Testament where God leaves us with his most lasting lessons. For instance, Matthew 25:34-40, where Jesus Christ said:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Clearly, when Jesus instructs us to give to the poor, he asks that we do so willingly. Let’s give Dr. Rogers the benefit of the doubt and say that his point was that charity should not be legislated (“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” – 1 Cor 13:3). And yet, should we all be so cheerful in our giving that there would be any poor left to help? The sad truth is, the free market is not free because greedy humans behave badly and taxes are required by law because selfish humans would never give government a dime.

I will go so far as to say that this unfortunate quote by Dr Rogers attempts to change Christian teaching into something more convenient; something more marketable to Christian conservatives. Moreover, by the example of the feeding of the 5,000, isn’t Jesus Christ demonstrating to us that indeed you CAN multiply wealth by dividing it?

I’ll leave you with my favorite quote today:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
– 1 Timothy 6:17-18

Failure of Ministry: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it (Part I)

Yah, I know. Not one single entry since December. What a loser. I’m still trying to get my ‘blog-mojo’ in gear – still looking for that convergent level of awareness and willingness to make this a weekly habit. Work interferes, you know?

I have been doing some reading and just came across this bit of Christian rhetoric:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
– Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 – 2005

With all due respect to the late Dr Rogers, his statement fails on two points.

First point of failure:Definition

Thanks to the GOP/Tea Party of late, the definition of socialism has devolved into rote histrionic hate list of so-called “liberal” public policies. Socialism, Capitalism – these are different forms of economics. Period. And this may come as a shock for some – entitlements are not exclusive to socialism, no more than free markets are to capitalism.

Consider the fact that all economics have symbiotic relationships with the people they serve. It follows then that a vibrant economic system depends upon the existence of a free society populated by healthy people who want to interact within the economy. Therefore, the healthier society, the more vibrant the economics, the greater potential for growth and wealth.

Even an ardent socialist such as myself must admit that the wealthiest nations on the planet became wealthy because of capitalism. Bar none – Capitalism grows economies like no other system. It creates markets, it meets demand, and it reaps tremendous profits and tax revenues. But here’s something that Dr Rogers fails to mention. ALL successful industrialized nations support a healthy socialistic infrastructure: public institutions and operations that help raise the standard of living by offering broad benefits to the society at large. Name them: airports, sports arenas, roads, freeways/highways, bridges, military, public schools (including colleges and universities), unemployment insurance, welfare, social security, unions, collective bargaining – all of these activities are firmly rooted and wholly supported by socialism.

Are there any living examples of totally pure free market capitalism? Certainly not among the major industrialized nations. Most definitely not stocks and commodities. Certainly NOT bonds and foreign exchanges (currencies). I’ve heard some traders (cynically) say that the only example of truly free market capitalism is in the pornography and porno trade. But even then… only marginally.

We regulate our “free markets” for good reason. After the debacle of 2007 and the ensuing Great Recession, one might assume that even more regulations ought to be in the wings (a debate for another time). Meanwhile, among our proud socialistic institutions, which one is truly an entitlement? The many sports arenas that major municipalities sponsor through bonds and public money?  Would anyone go so far as to expect to degree without working at one of our proud colleges and universities? And can anybody truly say that poor people in this country really do not deserve at least some help?

On this next point is Dr Roger’s second and greatest failure. See next post: “Failure of Ministry: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it (Part II)”