I've committed to a 9 months program at my church focused on integrating faith an work. One of the foundations of this program is to study the role of work in scripture and how it relates to our faith. In our last session we looked at part of a book called Practicing The King's Economy, and specifically on the notion of the importance of work and equity in scripture.
I know that many on the progressive christian side of things have problems with the Old Testament. It's "myth", it's "revenge fantasy", it's too supernatural, there's too much of YHWH directly intervening or whatever. But there seem to be a couple of things that they do tend to pull out of all of that in an attempt to form a political strategy. Those two things are the Gleaning laws, and the Jubilee. There is an attempt to use those two things as some sort of foundation for the social gospel/liberal/governmental social programs. So let's look at them.
The Gleaning laws required everyone on the Hebrew nation/Israel to leave the perimeter of their farmland unharvested, I believe that the requirement was 10% (I know, it's not a rule book, but...). This was then available for those in need to harvest and provide themselves with food. One of the keys to this law was that it required work on the part of those in need. It didn't require that the one who's field it was harvest the crop, process it, and then set aside 10% to deliver to those in need. I required those in need to actually do the work of providing their own food. It certainly didn't involve the government in the process. It was literally people allowing those in their community the ability to harvest their own food.
I've heard people argue that this law (but no rules, right?) justifies the modern welfare state. That this is why we should support programs like SNAP and other cash payments from the government. Yet, as we see with SNAP, those programs provide much more than basic sustenance and the very notion of requiring work to receive those benefits has raised quite a ruckus among the recipients.
The Jubilee was a law that required Israel to do a total reset every 50 years. All of the land reverted back to the original tribal allotments, all slaves were freed, debts were cancelled, and things went back to how they originally were when Israel settled the promised land. It seems germane to note that there is no record of Israel every actually practicing the Jubilee throughout their history as a nation. I've heard people use the notion of the Jubilee as justification for confiscatory tax rates on "the rich", and the like. Yet the reality is that the Jubilee was tied to the land and the people of Israel, and doesn't translate well to 21st century society.
What I think is the most important aspect of both of these laws, was that they were rooted in community. They were some of the laws intended to distinguish YHWH's chosen people from the surrounding nations. They were rooted within the community, and intended to strengthen the community.
If we are going to take anything from these two laws and attempt to apply it to 21st century culture, I'd suggest that we focus on work and community. That maybe a top down, national or international approach to problems isn't always the answer. That removing work from assistance creates dependency and dignity from those who need the help. That simply taking the wealth from those who do work and produce, and giving it to those who don't isn't the best plan.
36 comments:
Craig:
I know that many on the progressive christian side of things have problems with the Old Testament. It's "myth", it's "revenge fantasy", it's too supernatural
For what it's worth, I have not one single problem with the OT. I love the OT. I do disagree, however, with how some humans and human traditions choose to interpret the OT. That I disagree with those opinions does not mean I have a problem with the OT.
there seem to be a couple of things that they do tend to pull out of all of that in an attempt to form a political strategy.
Speaking for myself, I don't "pull out" anything from the OT to form a "political strategy." I read the whole of the Bible, which I love, A to Z. I note that, even though it was written by many humans over centuries, there are some common - very common - themes contained throughout the various texts of the Bible. One of them - perhaps the most dominant theme found consistently throughout the Bible with the exception of the Realm of God (which I argue is one and the same as this theme), is God's preferential option for the poor. God is found, consistently throughout the varied books of the bible, to be on the side of the poor, the oppressed and marginalized. AND God is consistently opposed to the wealthy, cruel and oppressive.
Noting that reality in the texts and contexts of the bible is just that: Noticing that very observable, consistent reality. And, as someone who's political leanings is influenced by all wisdom traditions, this also informs my opinions about personal and societal policies. That is not the same as "pulling out texts" to "form a political strategy."
Again, for what it's worth. And also, this is hardly a worldview/biblical understanding that is unique to me in any way.
Continuing:
I've heard people argue that this law (but no rules, right?) justifies the modern welfare state.
Speaking for myself and the many coming from traditions similar to mine, that there is a rule speaking of leaving the edges of the harvest for the poor and marginalized "justifies" welfare type programs is no more relevant than that there are laws in the OT that justify forced marriages or slavery. WE DO NOT LOOK to ancient rules to decide what our rules should be.
We should have some form of social safety nets because it is rational, it makes sense, and because we ALL are harmed when the poor and marginalized are suffering. And then, we might look at examples throughout human history where that has happened as support that, "look, it's been done before..." AND for those in judeo-christian faith traditions, we might reasonably say that, for those who value the Bible, we can see God's concern for the poor and oppressed being expressed in biblical rules found in ancient times... in the early church. But we don't make rules or laws today because "there's a line in the bible..." We do it because it's rational, moral and common sense and, I believe, because it's fiscally responsible.
Ultimately, as I've oft-noted, research shows over and over again that social safety nets SAVE money and we ignore the needs of the poor at our own risk and financial cost. That is, aside from being rational, decent and moral, it's also just good fiscal responsibility.
Craig:
I've heard people use the notion of the Jubilee as justification for confiscatory tax rates on "the rich", and the like. Yet the reality is that the Jubilee was tied to the land and the people of Israel, and doesn't translate well to 21st century society.
1. Define "confiscatory tax rates," please.
1a. Would you be willing to recognize that it's at least not entirely unreasonable to note that the household making $1 billion/year can't reasonably be said to be harmed in ANY sense at all by a 90% tax rate where they "only" get to keep $100 million EACH YEAR?
1b. Just out of curiosity, I would personally view it as hedonistic as hell if I was bringing home even $1 million each year, especially if I kept most of it (let's assume I "gave away" my tithe of 10%... I'd still find it hedonistic and godless and graceless to be making that kind of money. Would you feel the same way? My very conservative parents and truly, most people I know where we've talked about it would be embarrassed by that kind of wealth, much less $100 million, much less $1 billion!)... Would YOU find that an embarrassing amount of income to be coming in?
1b. On a related note: IF I were a business owner and my average employee was making $75,000/year and I was making $1 million a year, I'd be ashamed if my employees found that out. Would you?
2. Indeed, ancient rules and laws just generally aren't very applicable to modern societies. We should NOT create laws and policies because "there's a rule in the OT that I think is clear, therefore, we should have that rule now..."
I sure as hell don't want religious extremists executing adulterers and gay folk and disrespectful children. Presumably, neither do you. Those are hellish laws/policies. Agreed?
It's not worth a thing.
1. This obsession you have with believing that everything is about you, is troubling. You've obviously shown signs of narcissism, but this notion that every time I refer to the "progressive christian side" that I am specifically and exclusively referring to you is troubling.
2. Those on the "progressive christian side" do however, "pull out" proof texts to under gird and justify their political positions. I seem to recall you doing so along with others.
3. It's "Kingdom of God".
4. Thank you for acknowledging exactly what I suggested that "progressive christian" folx do.
5. I know it's not "unique to you" (you narcissistic freak). You should have been able to use your vaunted Reason to tease that out given the fact that I didn't mention you once in the original post.
I do so love it when Dan decides that he is qualified to speak for many other people, as if he has some magical ability to speak for them because they are unable to speak for themselves. Again, the creeping narcissism is concerning.
Of course, when Dan presumes to speak for others, it's usually just his version of the fallacy of numbers, and I ignore his delusional blather.
Thank you ever so much of the off topic "safety net" discourse. It should go without saying that those who are unable to work, should be treated differently than those who are able to work.
Nothing I've said invalidates the notion of a "safety net" for the small minority of society that might really need it.
Your placing your hunches about what is subjectively "rational, moral, and whatever" are cute, but of no value. Likewise what you "believe" has no value as anything close to proof.
It's too bad that we've seen so many SNAP recipients showing off their vast amounts of low nutrition/junk food, while complaining that their kids will starve, or whining about having to get a job if they want to stay in the program.
1. As soon as you define "fair share" specifically and precisely, I'll be glad to. I'll note that YHWH seemed to think that 10% was an appropriate number.
1a. No. It is not your place to decide that taking 90% of someone's income is harmful or not. I'll also note that the chance that there is someone with an "income" of $1 billion/year is tiny. We historically don't make public policy based on extremes, and this is a great example of doing exactly that.
1b. I could care less what you "would find" about anything. If I was engaged in an enterprise that generated that much personal income, I would not be embarrassed at all. Why would I be embarrassed about an enterprise that (obviously) provided a good or service that people found valuable enough to pay for, that generated X employment opportunities for people, paid (directly or indirectly) large amounts of taxes, and would provide me the opportunity to do "good works" on a large scale.
1b (the second 1b) No. But as a business owner, and the son of a business owner, I understand what's involved in owning a business. I understand that the employees take no risk, yet still get some reward for their work. I understand that when money is tight, the business owner pays their employees before or instead of themselves. (Should the employees be embarrassed if they get paid but the owner doesn't?) I understand that a business which "pays" the owner $1 million/year doesn't just magically spring out of nowhere and that it is highly likely that the owner invested and took risks that the employees didn't.
2. What a bizarre thing to make a bullet point out of, and totally off of the topic of the post.
I agree that, yes, you are stupid.
Craig:
1. This obsession you have with believing that everything is about you, is troubling. You've obviously shown signs of narcissism, but this notion that every time I refer to the "progressive christian side" that I am specifically and exclusively referring to you is troubling.
I never said that you were speaking about me, personally. Did I? But, knowing how often you fail to understand what I'm saying, I'm offering a bit of clarification from someone who is on the "progressive Christian side," amongst many others on that side. I'm quite well-versed with Christians on the side of progressive (ie, biblical, ie, rational, ie, moral) understanding. So, just as you often misunderstand what I'm saying, I suspect you may be misunderstanding what other progressives are saying.
That is, saying, "That text reads like a myth" does NOT indicate a distaste or dislike for the OT. It's just someone acknowledging what a text appears to be, at face value. It's bible study and literary criticism. Naught else.
So, once again, unlike what you falsely claim, I'm not thinking it's all about me. What YOU said was that "many on the progressive christian side of things..." I'm saying that while there MAY be some progressive types, I rather doubt that there are many who think that way. And certainly not in the ones who are serious about reading the Bible and understanding it well.
Can you cite even ONE progressive Christian who "have problems with the OT..." and then what they've said that made you think that? IF it's the case that they said, "Genesis (in parts) reads like a myth or a legend..." do you affirm that that is NOT the same as "having a problem with the OT..."?
In other words, I'm reacting to YOUR words, not assuming you're speaking about me, but guessing that you're most likely either misunderstanding or not taking a nuanced view of who is speaking and what they're actually saying.
I clearly failed miserably at articulating my primary points in this post. To simplify,
1. Biblically, work is generally integral to any help for the "poor" (realizing that some do not have the ability to work)
2. Help for the "poor" is, Biblically, most often tied to the community.
Craig:
3. It's "Kingdom of God".
[rolls eyes]
From any Thesaurus:
Kingdom: domain... empire... REALM...
It's just another word for Kingdom. Find something meatier to worry about.
And, given the reality of the harmful history of Patriarchy, that some justice-minded people who love God (who, after all, has not one single penis and is not, therefore, literally a "king..." - IT'S A METAPHOR, sir), why do you balk so much at those who push back against the tradition of treating "god" like a penis-laden "king..."?
This is a nothingburger except to those tied to defending patriarchal human traditions.
Craig:
1. As soon as you define "fair share" specifically and precisely, I'll be glad to. I'll note that YHWH seemed to think that 10% was an appropriate number.
A. There literally is NOT a specific number for what is a fair share for the hedonistically wealthy. Any more than there is a "right" number for what a tax rate should be, especially as it deals with the ultra-rich and robber barons and conmen.
B. BUT, there IS a pretty reasonable number when it comes to those on the other end of the spectrum: IF paying even a 1% tax on a household that has insufficient income for just paying their bills for living space, food, medical needs and other necessities, then that 1% is too much. Because the measure is harm.
A 1% tax on the very poor is NOT a fair share, because, Harm. A 90% tax on those making $1 billion/year can reasonably be considered fair, because they are WILDLY benefiting from the system and their workers and it will not cause them any harm. Hell, probably a 99% tax would not harm them (you can somehow "scrape by" on $1 million a year, right?)
C. And "God seemed to think that 10% was an appropriate number...." Bullshit. God never told you that. God never used words that makes a rational, moral person think that God "seemed to think" that 10% tax rate is an appropriate number.
Don't try to use God in your efforts to harm the poor or defend the hedonists. That's blasphemy, sir.
Strange. You literally said that you were "speaking for" some mystery other people, and your first two sentences were filled with "I". But whatever.
When you say "I suspect" (or similar) I tune you out.
I never said that myth=dislike. But feel free to argue something I didn't say and a point I didn't make. I know it makes you feel good.
Again you impose your assumptions on the background I've researched. As for what you are "saying" or what you "rather doubt" I simply don't care about your hunches.
No, I am pretty aware of what "progressive christians" (including you) have to say about the OT.
But, as always, I appreciate your condescension in deciding that I couldn't possibly understand your "words". My problem is that (of all of the progressive christians I read or listen to) you are one of the least impressive. For example, Greg Boyd, brings much more to the table than you as do virtually every one of those with advanced seminary degrees. Your reliance on yourself, and your Reason, is cute and all but I pay much more attention to folx with more than hunches.
Re: Your clarification:
1. Biblically, work is generally integral to any help for the "poor" (realizing that some do not have the ability to work)
Forget biblically, just rationally, work is generally integral to helping the poor, as well. No one is saying we should pay people to not work, to empower people to be lazy, to "stick it to the man..."
Hell, your pervert princeling (ie, the Felon) is now taking away dollars for long term housing that EMPOWERS people to work. He is taking actions that will make it harder, not easier for the poor and marginalized to work. And he's doing this because he's against leaning on data and research and Best Practices and because, due to his wealth, he really has not one bit of understanding about how poverty works. He really needs to step aside and let experts and adults do the work that needs to be done. But that's one of the problems with being a hedonistic narcissist: You think you can do everything better than anyone else. He's micromanaging the whole nation and doing a piss-poor, dangerously detrimental job of it!
2. Help for the "poor" is, Biblically, most often tied to the community.
Indeed. And that's what we're promoting. Using our tax dollars (or other dollars - church money is fine, too, IF churches would step up to meet the need) to invest in community empowerment, to promote safe and affordable housing, to promote life-affirming, good work/employment and to promote healthy living, healthy families and healthy communities.
Join us in telling the hedonistic micromanager to step back, get out of the way and let the adults do the work that needs to be done.
You know, I think, that my job is to help adults with disabilities to get employment (NOT to pay them to stay home!... sort of the opposite of that). And we have been getting the pay to do that work through Offices of Vocational Rehabilitation which was funded through the Department of Education, but WHOOPS, the rich felon boy took that money away. So, as of last May or June, we were no longer getting any new cases from Voc Rehab and without funds to do the work, we eventually will no longer be able to do the work of helping people get jobs.
The same thing is currently happening with Housing efforts, where my social worker friends who helped house homeless folks, homeless families, homeless veterans, are running up against having THOSE fundings cut.
Another problem with hedonistic narcissists (but I repeat myself) is that they believe in magical thinking. "IF we just take away the money that's helping them... THEN they'll magically get jobs and have homes!" That's not how things work. When you INVEST in jobs, homes, healthy communities, THEN you get jobs, homes and healthy communities.
And investing takes money. IF and when your conservative churches step up to meet the need, then fine, we will no longer need tax dollars. But until then, the money's got to come from somewhere. So you'll understand how those of us doing the work will be saying "put up or shut up" to those who are actively making housing and employment MORE difficult.
I don't "worry about" it at all. I merely find your attempts to avoid the term Kingdom, as if using a synonym for Kingdom is any different. The lengths you go to in order to tweak the Biblical language so as not to offend yourself are amusing.
Yeah, and who rules a "realm" (synonym for Kingdom?). Jesus (who presumably DID have male genitalia) is repeatedly referred to as not only King, but "King of King and Lord of Lords", and repeatedly referred to the "Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven". But if you're that scared of the term, then you play your little semantic games.
But I appreciate your inability to stay on topic.
Just admit that you can't/won't define "fair share" and that it's generally used to simply mean "more" and move on. Stop the
I'm merely pointing out what the text says. I'm sorry of you don't like it. Nor am I "defending hedonists", nor am I attempting to "harm the poor". Not even a tiny bit of "blasphemy" on my end.
It's telling that you have to make things up and pretend that I said them or that your made up crap represents anything I actually said.
Fair is fair, you won't define "fair share", so why should I define "confiscatory?
Who made you the arbiter of what taxes people should pay?
So, you literally agree with the primary points of my post, yet feel the need to bitch and moan about a bunch of off topic bullshit, bash Trump, and other blather.
Perhaps, if you'd started with something like "I agree with your premise", instead of attacking straw men...
Your inability to stay on topic is concerning. Who knew goldfish could type.
Unlike me who spent a decade employing the homeless, and another decade housing the low income, your arrogant pomposity in pretending that you have some claim on the labor and income of others is off putting to say the least.
At least I put MY money where MY mouth was when I hired the homeless, and I worked for an organization that didn't rely on tax money.
Not to mention that Jesus always referred to God as "Father". As if that was not enough, though the creation of mankind in God's image and likeness refers to women as well as men, Scripture clearly details that "a man" was created first and from that man woman was created. Thus, to say that both woman and man were created in God's image demands some explanation for why one was created before the other if the one first created didn't bear a closer resemblance to God as He sees Himself.
Women like Dan don't like these truths about Scripture and such facts are among those Dan rejects as "mythical" in form and style, so that he can dismiss them as not accurate...simply because it offends his girlish sensibilities.
Really. Dan's again being stupidly dishonest. Normal people are not "embarrassed" by wealth produced by their hard work. Dan, who creates nothing of value for anyone, can only regard the wealthy as undeserving without any regard for how they got where they are, nor any desire to even learn how. Dan likes to posture as a humble person. He ironically is very proud of his humility. It's an oxymoron with a special emphasis on "moron".
On the other hand, I get that Dan would feel embarrassed by making so much money. He'd be unable to resolve it given his hatred of the wealthy. He'd still try to play the humble person of meager means. He's a fraud and wealth would get in the way of his false humility.
We're supposed to be content and grateful to God in and for all things. Why would I feel "embarrassed" in being so financially blessed by God?
Craig:
So, you literally agree with the primary points of my post, yet feel the need to bitch and moan about a bunch of off topic bullshit
No. I don't literally agree with the primary points of your post. I agree with some elements but not the spin you and conservative types are putting on it. And No, I'm not "bitching" about off topic BS. I'm addressing the point directly and clearly and if you don't understand, just read again. Try harder.
Here's your final paragraph from your post:
If we are going to take anything from these two laws and attempt to apply it to 21st century culture, I'd suggest that we focus on work and community.
We're not doing that. As evidenced by your inability to cite even ONE person who is advocating that. By and large, we're not doing that in the progressive realm. (there are always outliers, but generally, NO, we're not doing that. If you want to make the case that progressives ARE doing that, begin with even ONE who is suggesting that).
That maybe a top down, national or international approach to problems isn't always the answer.
Again, progressives aren't doing that. We're looking to the top (ie, from We, the People who stand to benefit from all this) for some financial capital to do the work that needs to be done, but it's nearly always at the community/local level. At least the good programs are. Again, if you want to cite EVEN ONE actual case study, we could talk about their specifics.
That removing work from assistance creates dependency and dignity from those who need the help.
We're not doing that, not the way you're framing it, anyway. My wife who has worked for non-profit faith-based programs for 38 years is not doing that. My colleagues working with the disabled are not doing that. The other social services, mental health, health, education, etc groups are not doing that.
Self-sufficiency is always the goal. And where complete self-sufficiency isn't achievable, some degree of self-sufficiency is the goal.
That simply taking the wealth from those who do work and produce, and giving it to those who don't isn't the best plan.
We're not doing that. "Taking wealth" is stealing. Taxation - and more specifically, progressive taxation - is not stealing. It's a societal pact for the benefit of all. INCLUDING the wealthy predators who are benefiting from the education, roads, infrastructure that the rest of us are paying for and the labor their employees are doing to generate that wealth. No wealthy man is a Maralago. No wealthy person has "made it" on their own.
Craig:
Unlike me who spent a decade employing the homeless, and another decade housing the low income, your arrogant pomposity in pretending that you have some claim on the labor and income of others is off putting to say the least.
? I said nothing about you or your personal efforts to help solve problems. Indeed, I was quite clear: To the degree that churches or individuals can "solve" anything, more power to them. More power to you. I'm just noting the reality that not you, nor conservative churches, nor conservative individuals are solving the problem. That being the case, get out of the way and let us do the work of solving the problem... Or maybe better stated: You keep doing your little bits of the work and let us keep doing our bits of the work and we'll come closer to solving the problems.
But your efforts and your cash alone are not going to solve the problems or come close to it. We need tax dollars as evidenced by reality. If individual "gumption" and private dollars could have fixed poverty, it would have happened in the first 200 years of our nation (or somewhere else, in times past). Instead, poverty was an even deadlier and costlier problem before we, the people, agreed to start pulling our resources and tax dollars to put more serious efforts into the problem.
At least I put MY money where MY mouth was when I hired the homeless, and I worked for an organization that didn't rely on tax money.
What is wrong with relying on tax money? No matter how many times you might hint at it: It's NOT stealing to have a progressive tax scheme. We all pay taxes one way or the other. I'd rather have my tax dollars preventing a family from becoming homeless than spending even more in dealing with the lost education and lost lives that come with children being homeless.
It's simple fiscal responsibility. Do you really think that IF we don't put any money into social services that there won't be an even bigger cost to us later?
If not, then maybe you should have spent more time reading the research over the years. Best practices aren't called that for nothing. Fiscal responsibility isn't called that for nothing.
As to putting your money some place, we ALL do that. Many/most of us in the non-profit world could be making much more money as an investment banker or some other type of thief, but we sacrifice that to do lower paying work because it's the right thing to do. And we invest in our agencies in time and dollars beyond just our hours at work. And we invest in our communities with time and money in the support we give the poor and marginalized in our communities.
Don't be a pushy braggart, sir, it's not a good look and it undermines your credibility. *
* And I'm sure you'll read that and think that is exactly what I'm doing, but if that's what you think, you read and fail to understand. Again.
Craig...
Fair is fair, you won't define "fair share", so why should I define "confiscatory?
YOU brought up both terms, not me. Fyi. If YOU want to introduce terms to a conversation, seems like you'd be ready and willing to define your own terms. But that's on you.
Who made you the arbiter of what taxes people should pay?
We all need to and get to decide. Fyi.
Are you totally opposed to any degree of progressive tax schemes? Do you think the poor and rich should all pay, for instance, 10%? I'm guessing you DON'T think that. If that's the case, then we all agree on some degree of a progressive tax scheme. Then it's just a matter of how those lines are drawn, right?
I'm guessing you don't have an authoritatively right answer from God on this. Right?
Indeed, Dan falsely libels his president once again, preferring to demonize his actions as if he has the least bit understanding, as if he's taken the least bit of time to study what's being attempted by Trump. No doubt he gets his info from the very corrupt media sources he criticizes Trump for justly attacking.
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2025/08/30/hud-secy-scott-turner-schools-reporter-on-the-goal-behind-section-8-time-limits-n2193420
Dan pretends Trump is the ignorant one, when he's proven time and again just how much more wisdom resides within his coarse persona. Trump is well aware of how poverty works. Indeed it's the Trabues of the world who fail to understand, because it's their policies which keep people enslaved to the cycle of poverty. IF anyone's been doing a piss-poor job of addressing homelessness and poverty, it's been people like Dan and the low class, dishonest grifters of the party he supports.
In the meantime, this NPR article affirms the Trump admin is boosting overall homelessness funding, from 3.6 Billion to 3.9 Billion. Dan is much too stupid to dare condescend to accuse Trump of being stupid.
"And we have been getting the pay to do that work through Offices of Vocational Rehabilitation which was funded through the Department of Education"
Now why is the Department responsible for churning out so many illiterates who can't count using education money to fund an employment agency? Shouldn't it come from the Dept of Labor? And apparently it seems that if Dan can't get paid, he will no longer help these people get gigs. That's so Christian of him!
"Another problem with hedonistic narcissists (but I repeat myself) is that they believe in magical thinking. "IF we just take away the money that's helping them... THEN they'll magically get jobs and have homes!""
Well maybe you should stop listening to the hedonistic narcissists for whom you vote. Nobody on the right says this.
"And investing takes money. IF and when your conservative churches step up to meet the need, then fine, we will no longer need tax dollars. But until then, the money's got to come from somewhere."
It's not the government's job, dumbass, and they do a piss-poor job of it as your party continues to demonstrate:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/10/augean_stables_trump_s_california_ag_takes_on_the_homeless_juggernaut.html
I agree. While I appreciate the work Dan does, and have no doubt that it produces positive impacts in the lives of a relative few people, I'm not sure it produces a ton of value.
When I hired homeless guys, we fixed homes for people. We literally added value to people's lives and property. Likewise, when I was building, I can drive around and point to the 35 (ish) houses that I facilitated building. Those houses (in addition to the shelter and equity) provide tangible value for the cities and neighborhoods where they are.
I completely agree that if I put hard work, and my own money into a business which ends up being successful, I should thank YHWH for His blessings. I think that Dan reads some lines in the Bible which look like warnings to a specific subset of the rich (those who got rich through cheating or other unethical means) and assumes that they justify his hatred of the rich despite the fact that he is one of the rich that he hates.
Art,
Now your just meddling. Why in the world would we emulate Jesus in this? Did Jesus not teach us to pray starting with the words "Our Father who art in Heaven"? Is not Jesus Himself validating both YHWH as Father as well as Heaven?
That is True, although the fact that I "brought up both terms" doesn't obligate me to simply accede to your demands. You (and your political ilk) regularly use the term "fair share" without defining it. I simply wonder why not simply man up and define what you consider to be "fair". It seems clear that you consider a minimum of a 90% tax rate to be "fair" on those you wish to punish. But are unwilling to simply state what "fair share" is. Instead obfuscating, bobbing, weaving, and dodging.
You are literally insisting that you have some magical ability to decide what other people should be forced to do with the money they earn, and then you pretend that you haven't been doing what it obvious.
I am not totally opposed to a some degree of "progressive" taxation, although I can see the negative effects of high taxes and question the logic that ignores reality. The reality is that taxes affect people's behavior. Taxing people 90% of their income would have a negative effect on revenue because people aren't stupid.
I'm fine with any number of the flat tax proposals that have been proposed. I am also fine with removing income tax in favor of consumption taxes. I am also fine, to some degree, with an "progressive" tax structure.
I've never said that I do, although you have been very clear that you are prepared to make pronouncements about what others "should" be paying, and what others "need".
Art,
I'm simply going to focus on one thing you said. Your point about the dismal performance of our education system in terms of preparing HS grads to function in real world jobs is excellent. How are HS grads who are virtually illiterate and unable to do basic math find jobs that will provide them with the hope of upward mobility? We just saw data from UCSD which showed that a shocking number of COLLEGE STUDENTS needed REMEDIAL instruction in HS level subjects. When billions of federal tax dollars, and billions more in teachers union dues, produce such dismal results why in the world would we simply continue to double down on failure.
Again, you have agreement, but choose to bitch about off topic garbage instead.
You're inability to read English and understand simple words like "If" is concerning. But, even in your ignorance, you make my point brilliantly. You are quite clear that you (most of y'all) are not interested in focusing on programs tied to work, and embedded in local communities. By default, that leaves the current situation which discourages work, and focuses on top down.federal, one-size-fits-all programs that treat everyone the same. You say that you (all of you) are not advocating for a top down approach, yet you whine that you don't get enough federal tax dollars and vote for politicians that campaign on increasing federal programs rather than reducing them.
Again, the slip into narcissism by pretending like you and your wife are somehow perfectly emblematic of the entire progressive welfare state. Thankfully, we live in a world where we can actually see things rather that relying on folx like you who benefit from the system as it is constructed.
Taking from one person, to give to another through the use or threat of force of coercion, is not theft if the government does it. Interesting.
Does the government federal and state have a duty or responsibility to use the money that they take from the productive and use it wisely, efficiently, and effectively?
When you say "the rest of us are paying for" do you not realize what demographic pays the vast majority of income taxes? Do you not realize that the things you cite, which EVERYONE benefits from, are NOT paid for via federal income taxes? Do you not realize that the rich pay higher property taxes than the poor? That (some of) the rich pay the property taxes that fund local schools, yet send their kids to private schools, in essence subsidizing the "education" of the non rich while deriving no direct benefit?
This is where your prejudices and ignorance about wealth, the wealthy, and income/wealth make you look foolish and ignorant.
This "self made" argument is stupid. Obviously every one gets some degree of help from others, but to argue that Jobs and Wozniak didn't plant the seed that became Apple with very little "help" from anyone else is simply insane.
Art,
You'll note that the only "rich" person Dan bitches about is Trump. He doesn't bitch about Gates, Soros, P-BO, Clinton, Pelosi, Sanders, or any of the leftist "rich". He doesn't object when billionaires bankroll BIden and Harris (in fact he supports the whole enterprise) nor when Soros buys DA offices across the country. Nor does he bitch when Gates forces poor Africans to adopt various "health" initiatives. Strange.
What a strange and bizarre attempt to act supportive of what I've done, but to cast it in such a negative light.
Relying on tax money inevitably forces organizations to compromise and dance to the tune of whatever government is supplying the tax money. Tax money is not an endless. To rely on tax money is to put your ability to do things in the hands of others over which you have no control. Tax money is, in reality, borrowed money which must be paid back with interest by our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Our massive and out of control federal debt is a crushing burden that people with attitudes like yours pass on to future generations.
If we were seeing "simple fiscal responsibility" with tax money you might have a point. Yet we are not. In one state, controlled totally by the DFL we've seen "simple fiscal responsibility" lead us to pissing away an 18 billion dollar surplus, adding 10 billion dollars in new tax burden (plus another 1 billion in increased property taxes) for a total swing of almost 30 billion dollars (black to red). We're in the middle of uncovering institutionalized fraud that is running into the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars. We've seen educational achievement drop precipitously, and increasing out migration of individuals and businesses. We're still seeing the negative effects of the draconian COVID response, as well as the negative effects of the Summer or Love.
But yeah, tell me your fantasies about "simple fiscal responsibility". How is it "simple fiscal responsibility" to spend grossly more that revenue? How is it "simply fiscal responsibility" to allow criminals with violent criminal histories continue to commit violence.
IF our "social services" were efficient, effective, fiscally responsible, and encouraged work, family, and community, you might have a point. Were the billions spent following LBJ's "Great Society" spent with "simple fiscal responsibility"? Were those billions responsible for some great societal renaissance?
You clearly don't understand my point. I paid taxes, and then I used additional money (which I earned) to go above and beyond.
Your characterization of "investment bankers" as automatically being thieves is simply you engaging in slander/defamation/libel against people who you do not know.
That I'm not being pushy or bragging (although you are) is just one more example of Dan misrepresenting/lying/slandering/libeling those he disagrees with while bragging about himself, his wife, his church, and his political ilk. Yes, I read your words where you brag about yourself, and I understand them. It's not rocket science.
Craig, who apparently has never read anything I've written, even in this very thread, said:
You are quite clear that you (most of y'all) are not interested in focusing on programs tied to work, and embedded in local communities.
Dan:
Progressives aren't doing that. We're looking to the top (ie, from We, the People who stand to benefit from all this) for some financial capital to do the work that needs to be done, but it's
nearly always at the community/LOCAL LEVEL.
At least the good programs are.
Also Dan:
We're not doing that ["removing work" from assistance], not the way you're framing it, anyway. My wife who has worked for non-profit faith-based programs for 38 years is not doing that. My colleagues working with the disabled are not doing that. The other social services, mental health, health, education, etc groups are not doing that.
Self-sufficiency is always the goal.
So, Progressives = LOCAL work in LOCAL communities.
You're thinking of the pervert prince and the way he's trying to dictate to local communities, to local schools, to local libraries, to local businesses, to local Boy Scouts, to local sports teams, etc, etc, what HE the "man" at the top decides, the local people must do what HE dictates that they do, very much from the top down.
Are you paying ANY attention to the news?
And clearly, even in this very post, I've been abundantly clear, stating specifically it IS about empowering people to work and find housing. It IS about decisions being made at the local community level.
You're just flatly mistaken and have it bass-ackwards, sir. But now that I've removed your ignorance on this with my direct clarification, I suspect that you'll do the right thing and apologize and retract the false claims.
Dan's just in full on making things up and pretending that I don't read his drivel mode.
Dan's also in full on "Dan speaks for progressives" mode. My problem with Dan's presumptuous behavior is that I live in a metro/county/state controlled by progressives for decades. I'm watching them preside over massive fraud, and implement a leave law that they admit can't/won't be policed for fraud. I listen to Dan's Pollyannahish personal hunches, then I look at what his side is doing nationally and state wide, and compare the two. Again, I interact with so many more "progressives" than Dan could possibly imagine, so many of them who are much more powerful and influential than Dan, that I can't take his grandiose claims to speak for "progressives" seriously. The fact that he admits his addiction to top down, federally funded, programs that are nationwide in scope doesn't help his claims much if at all.
That Trump isn't "dictating" anything to local communities, and is proposing eliminating the Dept of Ed and directly funding the states should be something that these "community first" "progressives" support, but no. They cling to the federal bureaucracy and it's country wide mandates, instead of support for more local control. I'll simply note that Dan makes these broad, sweeping, vague, claims but never actually goes into detail about what he's talking about.
I will say that finally watching the feds start to clean up the corruption and fraud rampant in MN is refreshing. Especially as Keith Ellison was quite friendly with the food fraud folx.
Yeah, you do say some things that could be interpreted that way, but then you say other things that demonstrate your addiction to further blowing up the federal debt to fund more and more programs that increase dependency.
Do you support an audit of the SNAP program to cull out those who are collecting benefits under multiple names, using someone else's SSN, imposing some nominal work requirement, and limiting the use of SNAP for "junk food"?
Strangely enough, SNAP could well be described as corporate welfare for the big food and drink conglomerates, just like the insane P-BO care subsidies were corporate welfare for big insurance/pharma.
As I never mentioned you in the original post, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself (as much as you want to think so), I fail to see how generalizing what I hear from non-Dan progressives as "false claims". But I can see how someone as narcissistic as you would think that you spewing your hunches and speaking for other people is somehow definitive.
To take it a bit further, I reiterate that most passages dealing with wealth are using wealth to represent all things which against which people might subordinate God as of lesser importance in their lives. For some it's wealth, for others fame, for others power. But all those things coming second to one's devotion to acquire them in ways consistent with the faith are not at all problematic. They aren't the only things in life with distract us from God. They're just the most obvious.
Craig,
Indeed. It more than seems true there are more examples of profiteering and financial influence on his side of the aisle, and by quite a bit.
I agree that the problems with wealth in scripture tend to fall into two related things.
1. Idolatry, like the rich kid, many people look to their wealth for meaning and salvation instead of YHWH.
2. Abuse. There seems to be a lot of talk directed at people who either got their wealth unethically or illegally, and those who use their wealth and it's power to abuse others. The problem is that those behaviors are not the fault of the wealth rather that wealth provides the ability and magnifies character traits already in existence. YHWH blessed Abraham, Isaac, David, Job, Solomon, and many others with wealth and power which they (often, sometimes) used for good. Throughout the NT we see wealthy people supporting Paul and selling property for the Church. Dan seems to be assuming that texts directed to specific people must be taken as a general attack on all wealth.
I suspect that it goes back and forth, but recently it does seem that way. Which is why it's helpful to oppose all misuse of government position by anyone.
Craig...
Do you support an audit of the SNAP program to cull out those who are collecting benefits under multiple names, using someone else's SSN, imposing some nominal work requirement, and limiting the use of SNAP for "junk food"?
I always support rational, data-based efforts at removing any actual fraud. Someone choosing food items you don't approve of isn't really fraud, but I certainly support efforts like Michelle Obamas efforts to promote healthy food for all. It's a given that it's always support efforts to reduce fraud, but there's your answer.
Now, do YOU support efforts to remove fraud? For instance, it is a known reality that there is massive fraud in the military and defense industries. Probably enough to pay for the entire SNAP program, and then some.
Does it make sense to start where billions are being misspent fraudulently as opposed to remove the splinter from SNAPs eye?
Did DOGE do ANY cutting in the military fraud areas?
If you're ignorant of the fraud in Defense, I can provide some data.
Thank you for making my point, that you do support nation wide, top down, one size fits all, federally funded programs as a one-size-fit-all blanket approach to fixing this problem. But misrepresenting what I've said isn't really helpful but it's what you do.
Post a Comment