Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Greatest Socialist of All Time

I was very happy to see the President return to the "Hope" and "Change" mantra that earned him the White House last night. Regardless of your opinion of the man and the direction he is taking our country, we all benefit when the tone is a positive one. This change of approach from words like "catastrophe" to "sputtering along" when referring to our present economy is a step in the right direction, sure to help stabilize markets and start some positive energy.
I don't know where this all takes us in the future, I fear a return to oppressive interest rates and the tax of runaway inflation due to our manipulation of the money supply, which I am not convinced is needed. I am not an economist, just a concerned citizen that sees a course of huge spending increases causing pain for future generations that could be avoided. The natural business cycle may prove to be the most powerful tool toward turning the economy around, and I am sure plenty of people will be lining up to take credit for it in a few years. I admit there are different points of view on the subject that can, and should, be argued in civil discussions, but I don't think anyone would refute the idea that we are headed for a period of increased government growth. Whether that growth proves to be a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate, and how the future will be told.
One area I am concerned about is the creep toward socialism. I am not sure exactly what the definition of a socialist nation is, I believe an economist would tell you when spending on social programs reaches about half of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) then you are classed as a socialist nation. The US is headed toward 40%. What that means in reality is a nation where the people prefer their government to be in control of taking care of its citizens. The care of individuals will be more in the hands of government run programs than in the hands of family, friends and community than ever before, but what does that really mean and why should we worry?
From my perspective, in simple terms, that means a government that wants to replace God as our caretaker. Providing for every need is the intent, so that we are all happy, productive and settled contributors for the common good. There are a few elements missing from this idea, however, first and foremost is that even if our physical needs are met we will all still hunger for something more. Over 90% of Americans profess a faith in God, whatever the religion doesn't matter to make this point, we mostly believe there is something else out there that is more than we can comprehend. Our understanding of this fact, and how we react to it, is just as important (I would argue more so) as our physical care and well being. We need to be allowed to wrestle with out current condition, struggling together to find our way out and learning about our inner selves at the same time.
The best care for any individual is to consider ALL of their needs, just not the physical ones. Government can swallow our corporate financial resources to provide for some important items, but in reality we are still left wanting more, and more, until the nation is bankrupted (see previous post on stages of democracy). The greatest socialist of all time was none other than Jesus Christ, he wept, healed, provided for and loved so much that he is regarded as one of the most important figures of our time. He truly understood people's needs, not just the physical ones, but the spiritual ones, and put himself in a position of relationship where those needs could be called out and filled. We would do well to learn a lesson from that example, we cannot provide for needs without relationship. Allowing people to fill out a form, stand in a line or Google up a webpage to collect some of our national resources for themselves is not providing, it is creating dependence. We are giving fish instead of teaching to fish, replacing relationship with bureaucracy, administering medicine for our bodies while our souls are withering. 
Jesus Christ put modern socialists to shame. Not only did he provide food, health and well being, he provided relationship that went even further to heal the complete needs of the people. And he did it with no money. Now, I can't walk on water, or expect to fix problems without financial resources, but what I am able to do is help people by building relationships first and having faith toward positive resolution. Who better to understand financial issues than our families, communities and friends who are living with the same concerns? What better situation to push people together and help each other solve problems, instead of pulling them apart to rely on the ease of the government dole that requires no personal commitment? Modern socialists would do well to consider their own imposed references to separation of church and state. True need is a matter for the church, which does not require government to succeed, but partial need is a matter for the state, which must have a moral and upright society for the republic to function. Washington stated this reality in his farewell address, yet we are still trying to prove him wrong.
So while we are throwing money at a problem that might reach part of the physical need that is out there and protect us from struggling together, it still falls to those of us that respect personal responsibility to seek out and help those in need. It falls to us to build relationships, understand the problem, and attempt to help the best that we can, albeit with fewer resources since more and more will be going to DC to pay for a partial solution. It is easy to complain, but our responsibility remains, a responsibility not to our nation and its programs but to the citizens that make it up. The gift of Christ is part of that responsibility for those that believe Him as the only path to the Father, and if you want to give someone real "Hope" then that is the best path you can take.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Monday, February 16, 2009

Should have been a Dead Donkey...

Young Chuck in Montana bought a horse from a farmer for $100. The farmer agreed
to deliver the horse the next day.

The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad
news... the horse died."

Chuck replied, "Well, then just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Chuck said, "Ok, then, just bring me the dead horse."

The farmer asked, "What ya going to do with him?"

Chuck said, "I'm going to raffle him off."

The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead horse!"

Chuck said, "Sure I can, watch me.  I just won't tell anybody he's
dead."

A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, "What happened with
that dead horse?"

Chuck said, "I raffled him off.  I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece
and made a profit of $998."

The farmer said, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Chuck said, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars
back."

Chuck grew up and now works for the government.  He's the one who figured
out how this "bail-out" is going to work.