Biblical econmics or i'll probabley vote repulican anyway

[beanfarmer]

Biblical Economics (Toward a more pinko-commi theology?)

On a boredom scale most people would rate Old Testament law second only to those long lists of who begot who. Most people would also rate economics as only slightly more interesting than reading license plates on a cross continent trip. The Bible is concerned with theology, not economics or politics, but what it says about God does have a bearing on how we live and economics is a part of our lives even if it has been so long since we've seen a 100 that we forgot who’s face is on it. (First lesson in economics.... It's B. Franklin, a dead guy famous for appearing on $100 bills.)

The underlying principle for viewing things from a Biblical perspective is found in Psalms. “The earth is the LORD'S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Ps 24:1, Exodus 9:29) Nothing belongs, ultimately, to anyone. Not personally or collectively. Even the people belong to God. Everything is on loan from God.

The ancient Israelites had a land-based economy. When they took possession of the land of Canaan God told them to divide up the land so that every family had a piece of it. The land could be sold, but not for long. Every fifty years it was to revert back to its original owner or his heirs. This fiftieth year was called the “Jubilee.” (Leviticus 25:9-31) That way every family at least could eek out a living, and have a place to stay while they were eking. The end result of this is that while no one could become a land baron, no one’s family could be impoverished forever either.

When the kingdom split, the southern kingdom, Judah, followed this principle at least a little and the northern kingdom, Israel, pretty much ignored it. The end result was that Judah, though not very economically significant, tended to have a large middle class with very few that were very wealthy and very few poor, while the northern kingdom was an economic powerhouse and had many who were super rich but many more who were desperately poor.

What did God think of this? Amos tells us…

“Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes—“

“Forasmuch therefore as your treading [is] upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them. For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate [from their right].”

Have you heard of the 10 lost tribes? They’re still lost and that is partly why.

In the New Testament Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

And James said, “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.”

Though fraud is mentioned in this passage, it is easy to make modern day comparison to wages paid to unskilled labor. Today the more taxing the job is physically, the more mind numbingly boring, or dangerous, the less the compensation. I don't know if that is "defrauding" but if it is not, it is right next to it. `

The early church had a kind of communism going.

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.”

This is where the pinko-commi theology comes in. Some have suggested that that this early form of insipient communism led to the eventual poverty of the Jerusalem church. But nowhere in scripture is the practice condemned. The problem with most modern communism with is that it is Godless. There are examples of 20th century communism, or at least socialism, which have worked because they had a moral compass. Trinity Foundation is one that's achieved it partially. The Amana Colonies in Iowa had much of their property in common until mid 1900's. (Didn't know your refrigerator and microwave had communist roots, did ya.) The Amish have many socialistic behaviors that would cause most republicans to run from the room screaming if they ever thought about it that way.

What is a Christian to do about this? I don't know. Maybe not worship capitalism so much. If you are an employer see that you compensate your employees as generously as you can, remembering that you will be answerable to the "Lord of the harvest." Try to live simply so that you can be more generous to others less fortunate. Don't be so damn (don't blame me, it was God's idea to put damnation and hording in the same sentence) interested in "laying up treasures where moth and rust can corrupt."

[KingsGambit]

I'm not sure I would call the behavior of the early church "communism" per se because it was not government enforced. Also, as Craig Blomberg points out, this example was not followed universally by the early church, as Paul asked people to participate in collections for specific needs. Obviously, if everybody shared every cent they earned, there would be nothing to share in the first place.

[Thersites]

Beanfarmer, have you heard of Catholic Social Teaching? It includes (and gives some funny-sounding names to) many of the ideas you've mentioned.

[beanfarmer]

The principle remains the same whether or not 1st century Christians followed it. If I vote for romney we will end up with 2 classes. The rich and a ever expanding poor class or a similitude to the folks amos was condemning. If I don't vote, oboma will win and I will keep my very expensive health care that is keeping me alive but I will have allowed the most antiChristiian president to rule 4 more years who favors law over rights but only against Christians for Muslems there will be no restrictions probably. It will soon hate crime to say homosexuality is wrong and we will be murdering the unborn at un preceden\ded levels. I CAN ONLY SAY COME LORD JESUS

[themuzicman]

I think what you're missing about the 1st Century church is that participation was completely voluntary. There was no government forcing people to participate. That's the difference between the early Church and President Obama. No one forced the early church to share.

[Jedidiah]

Keep in mind that it is much easier to share when the government does not take away so much of what you get.

[Soyeong]

What is a Christian to do about this? I don't know. Maybe not worship capitalism so much. If you are an employer see that you compensate your employees as generously as you can, remembering that you will be answerable to the "Lord of the harvest." Try to live simply so that you can be more generous to others less fortunate. Don't be so damn (don't blame me, it was God's idea to put damnation and hording in the same sentence) interested in "laying up treasures where moth and rust can corrupt."

There is a joy in giving to others what you have earned and what they can't hope to repay. There is no joy in having money you earned taken away from you and given to people who did not earn it. It not that we worship capitalism; it's just that it is easily the best economic system available to us. It is this system that has allowed the US to be one of the most generous nations in the history of the planet. All you have to do is study Russia to see the obvious pitfalls of Communism.

The principle remains the same whether or not 1st century Christians followed it. If I vote for romney we will end up with 2 classes. The rich and a ever expanding poor class or a similitude to the folks amos was condemning. If I don't vote, oboma will win and I will keep my very expensive health care that is keeping me alive but I will have allowed the most antiChristiian president to rule 4 more years who favors law over rights but only against Christians for Muslems there will be no restrictions probably. It will soon hate crime to say homosexuality is wrong and we will be murdering the unborn at un preceden\ded levels. I CAN ONLY SAY COME LORD JESUS

The poor will always be one of the classes, so there will always be two classes no matter who you vote for, unless they do something to bring about the end of the rich. There aren't many things that would be more destructive to a society than that, so I'm glad there are multiple classes of people. While it is great that we have the ability to provide you with expensive healthcare to keep you alive, the problem is that it is not sustainable. Getting things that we can't afford is great in the short term, but in the long term it eventually will come back to bite us, and when it does, it will be far worse for everyone than if we had only stuck to what we could afford.

[beanfarmer]

Muzicman, of course you are right about it not forced with the 1st century Christians, but that was an ideal situation, much like the amana colonies before they incorperated, or the amish now. There are no rich because there are no poor. They were middle class. Shure some had more than others but there were no romneys nor doctors who make 120 an hour. How is someone who gets $8.50 an hour supposed to pay that?

Jedidiah, how many, if left alone would, do that giving? So it takes a government to force them take care of their fellow man.

Soyeong, l'm guessing your yearly income is in the 6 figgures and you have unlimited health care and a pention? There is much waste in our health care system. Here is an example.

My old speaking device cost $6000 but it was a medical device designed for handicapped paid by your hard earned tax dollars so about $4200 of that was just to say what I did above for free. The mount for it costs $650. I could have had a titanium one machined for half of that but it would not have been a medical device designed for the handicapped so they would not have paid for it. If I could figure out what they do to make it a medical device designed for the handicapped I would be rich or at least save taxes but alas, it is a closely guarded secret like Area 51, that our government knows we can't handle. I suspect much like the $600 toilet seats we hear about every so often that if we knew why it cost so much they probably would have to kill us less our heads explode from too much information being crammed in to such a tiny space.

I replaced my old talking computer when I broke it trying to fix the power cable that my worker had accidentally cut. (Hint: never try cutting into your computer. And while a big hammer is necessary on many jobs it is suitable for only one job on a computer. When your frustration level has risen to the point that you want to smash it to tiny bits and burn them and stomp on the ashes.) The new one my mom paid for. I didn't want to explain the mangled condition of my $6000 computer. The new one cost $1700 since it was not a medical device designed for the handicapped. It had all of the features on the old one and some extras the other didn't. lt had 2 times the memory and hard disk space, a disk drive, a keyboard, and it could be hooked up to internet, printer, and many other things. But the state would not pay for it because it was not medical equipment. The one I have now I paid 300 for and though it is not as good as the $1700 one it works fine and I could supply the state with hundreds of them with wheelchair mounts and wheelchair power supplies for 500 used and 2000 new. But they will not consider it because I am not a medical supply company. If the bureaucrats would lighten up on the rules, and doctors not get such exorbitent wages, maybe health care would not cost so much., maybe health care would not cost so much.

I have a program on my laptop mounted to my wheelchair via the $650 mount. I modified to fit on my new wheelchair that actually works and hasn't caught on fire like my old busted wheelchair. They wanted to build a mount for $1500 but I decided to save the tax payers money and modify the old one. So like my grandpa, I third world engineered one and my son welded it up for me that looks post apocalyptic, but works, to hold my laptop.

The program I use utilizes a touch screen (utilizes is a $50 word for when you can't remember the word "uses") where you have common words arranged by the type of speech it is. It tries to guess words it doesn't have on the screen.

[Soyeong]

Soyeong, l'm guessing your yearly income is in the 6 figgures and you have unlimited health care and a pention? There is much waste in our health care system. Here is an example.

I am currently unemployed and I could greatly benefit from a free healthcare package, but that doesn't stop me from being able to see that our nation can't afford it, especially with the amount of waste that is associated with government spending. As your story aptly pointed out, we can spend money much more efficiently than the government can, so if the goal is to make the best use of our money, why would we as a nation want the government to foot the bill?

If the bureaucrats would lighten up on the rules, and doctors not get such exorbitent wages, maybe health care would not cost so much., maybe health care would not cost so much.

The issue is that we need more doctors; not that we need the same doctors working harder more for less money. The high wages of a doctor are well deserved for the years of training that it takes to become one and are needed as motivation to get more people to choose that career. The bigger issue I think is that we live in a litigious society where the lawyers are leeching the system for all it's worth. The amount that doctors need to pay for malpractice insurance is enormous. That isn't to say that malpractice isn't a problem, but that we as a nation are partly responsible for the problem.

[themuzicman]

Muzicman, of course you are right about it not forced with the 1st century Christians, but that was an ideal situation, much like the amana colonies before they incorperated, or the amish now. There are no rich because there are no poor. They were middle class. Shure some had more than others but there were no romneys nor doctors who make 120 an hour. How is someone who gets $8.50 an hour supposed to pay that?

So, by asking this question, I assume you are abandoning your initial argument.

The answer to the question has to do with liberal legislation. In this case, the mega corporate welfare passed by Teddy Kennedy giving businesses a huge tax break to offer employees health insurance rather than increases in income. What's resulted is that health insurance "insures" things that ought not be insures, like doctor visits.

Why is this a problem? Glad you asked.

You see, insurance is business of accepting someone else's risk for profit. We insure our houses. The reason we do this is that most of us don't have enough equity to put $100,000 into losses if our houses burn down. So, we pay $800/year (or whatever the risk is) for an insurance company to assume that risk for us, and if that event happens, they pay for our losses.

And for the low risk, financially catastrophic event, that's an effective tool for everyone.

However, a $120 doctor visit isn't low risk and isn't financially catastrophic. So, the two options are:

1) Pay the $120.
2) Pay the insurance company to cover their costs, take a profit, and then pay the $120.

Now, which is more? (If you didn't say #2, you need to go back to 1st grade math.)

So, ultimately, if insurance pays for something, it always costs more than paying for it oneself. The only reason a low risk, financially catastrophic event is a good cause for insurance is that insurance companies can pool 1000 people together, knowing that only 1 will actually take the loss in a given year, collect $110,000 in premiums, pay out the one $100,000 claim, and make a profit, and all 1000 people will have been protected against something for which 999 people won't experience. If nearly 100% of people experience an event, then paying the premium to "cover" this event would cost more than paying for it out of one's own pocket.

So, we can see why "health insurance" for doctor visits is a bad idea.

But wait, there's more.

Consider for a moment two doctors. One has a small waiting room with a nurse that doubles as a receptionist. He has two waiting rooms, and so he frequently gets behind in seeing patients. He charges $25/visit.

The other has a large building with vaunted ceilings, a large flat screen TV, a receptionist in addition to a nurse, free coffee, a large play area for the kids, and up to date magazine subscriptions. He charges $100/visit.

Doctors have the same education, same experience.

Now, if we're all paying for our own visits, some will choose the $25 doctor, some the $100 doctor, based upon their financial situation.

However, if we're all paying $20 copay, we all wind up at the $100 doctor, and the $25 doctor has to become a $110 doctor with better amenities in order to attract patients back to his practice.

And, in response, the $100 doctor now charges $120 for even MORE amenities, and so on and so forth.

So, you can see why "health insurance" for high-risk, financially affordable events is bad: It costs more, and if nearly everyone has it, it causes health care costs to skyrocket. (Does any of this sound familiar.)

Thus, the root of your problem is liberals who pass legislation that sounds good that has horrible consequence. And they do that a lot.

So, when we talk about conservative economics, we look at events like this and say that liberal economics hurts people. Because it does. If you want to know how someone making $8.50/hr can pay for a $120 doctor visit, ask why they're still making $8.50/hr (because their wage increases went into more health "insurance", and ask why it's $120 to see the doctor (because the health "insurance" system has forced him to charge more to compete for patients.)

So, realistically, government run (and government forced) socialism fails for these very reasons, and disparity between poor and rich exists because of government imposition on the economy.

And all this occurs as the federal government takes from 20-60+% of our incomes in taxes to waste on these programs.

And, if you look at any objective study, conservative Christians are the most giving, most generous people in America. They are essentially the only ones that actually give their own money. The liberal/socialists specialize in giving away other people's money, that they take by force, using the power of the state.

[Josheb]

Biblical Economics (Toward a more pinko-commi theology?) On a boredom scale most people would rate Old Testament law second only to those long lists of who begot who. Most people would also rate economics as only slightly more interesting than reading license plates on a cross continent trip. The Bible is concerned with theology, not economics or politics, but what it says about God does have a bearing on how we live and economics is a part of our lives even if it has been so long since we've seen a 100 that we forgot who’s face is on it. (First lesson in economics.... It's B. Franklin, a dead guy famous for appearing on $100 bills.)

The underlying principle for viewing things from a Biblical perspective is found in Psalms. “The earth is the LORD'S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Ps 24:1, Exodus 9:29) Nothing belongs, ultimately, to anyone. Not personally or collectively. Even the people belong to God. Everything is on loan from God.

The ancient Israelites had a land-based economy. When they took possession of the land of Canaan God told them to divide up the land so that every family had a piece of it. The land could be sold, but not for long. Every fifty years it was to revert back to its original owner or his heirs. This fiftieth year was called the “Jubilee.” (Leviticus 25:9-31) That way every family at least could eek out a living, and have a place to stay while they were eking. The end result of this is that while no one could become a land baron, no one’s family could be impoverished forever either.

When the kingdom split, the southern kingdom, Judah, followed this principle at least a little and the northern kingdom, Israel, pretty much ignored it. The end result was that Judah, though not very economically significant, tended to have a large middle class with very few that were very wealthy and very few poor, while the northern kingdom was an economic powerhouse and had many who were super rich but many more who were desperately poor.

What did God think of this? Amos tells us…

“Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes—“

“Forasmuch therefore as your treading [is] upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them. For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate [from their right].”

Have you heard of the 10 lost tribes? They’re still lost and that is partly why.

In the New Testament Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

And James said, “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.”

Though fraud is mentioned in this passage, it is easy to make modern day comparison to wages paid to unskilled labor. Today the more taxing the job is physically, the more mind numbingly boring, or dangerous, the less the compensation. I don't know if that is "defrauding" but if it is not, it is right next to it. `

The early church had a kind of communism going.

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.”

This is where the pinko-commi theology comes in. Some have suggested that that this early form of insipient communism led to the eventual poverty of the Jerusalem church. But nowhere in scripture is the practice condemned. The problem with most modern communism with is that it is Godless. There are examples of 20th century communism, or at least socialism, which have worked because they had a moral compass. Trinity Foundation is one that's achieved it partially. The Amana Colonies in Iowa had much of their property in common until mid 1900's. (Didn't know your refrigerator and microwave had communist roots, did ya.) The Amish have many socialistic behaviors that would cause most republicans to run from the room screaming if they ever thought about it that way.

What is a Christian to do about this? I don't know. Maybe not worship capitalism so much. If you are an employer see that you compensate your employees as generously as you can, remembering that you will be answerable to the "Lord of the harvest." Try to live simply so that you can be more generous to others less fortunate. Don't be so damn (don't blame me, it was God's idea to put damnation and hording in the same sentence) interested in "laying up treasures where moth and rust can corrupt."

I would encourage you to read "The Dominion Covenant" and "Tools of Dominion" by Gary North an economist who writes explicitly from a reconstructionist perspective. Biblical economics are built on personal property rights beginning with ones ability to voluntarily negotiate and exchnage of his or her time (in the form of labor) for services, goods, or money. I would also suggest to you that the reason the members of the early church sold their property and shared it was because they new the dectrution of Jerusalem was imminent and their property would soon be worthless. The church did not ask for anyone to surrender their property or the profits from such sales. Ananias was explicitly told by Peter that the land was his to keep or sell as he chose and the money from the sale was his to do with as he pleased. The love of money, not money itself, is called the root of all evil and propsperity is often framed in the Bible as a blessing from God and evidence of Godly living.

The Bible explicitly tells us that theft is wrong. Governments taking money form one person or one business entity to give it to another person or busines is theft. Especially in the U.S. The U.S. is a representative republic (this was the form of government existent under Moeses), not a one-person-one-vote democracy or a socialist entity of any form. It has a specific Constitution that limits the role of the federal government and specifiies its domain. Maintaining a centralized bank is not within the Constitutional mandates. Neither taxation of income, property taxes (which amounts to rent), or sales taxes (and a whole host of other taxes) are not constitutional or Biblical. Neither are federal education, health care, welfare, or intra-state commerce. Taxes should be collected locally for local purposes, the state should collect from the municipalities and the federal government from the states. This is how the U.S. Constitution originally established it (state senators were not elected; they were chosen by the state to represent the state not the citizenry).

I suggest you visit americanvision.org. They're pretty radical but whether or not you agree there will bound to be some exegesis that raises awareness of scriptural economics and current politcal/economic pathology. Start here: http://americanvision.org/?s=economics, http://americanvision.org/category/c...ights-project/ or http://americanvision.org/page/2/?s=socialism. There is some overlap of articles in the links and a lot of reading but I think you'll find it thought provoking.

[Obsidian]

The jubilee plan was a good idea, but unless the state conquered more territory, it would only work for as long as the population didn't grow too much. Otherwise, you would ultimately have eight different kids fighting over one acre of land. That would not be much of an inheritance.

Also, it was not socialistic in the slightest. And God specifically advised buyers to keep in mind how much time was left until the jubilee, and set their buying offers accordingly. If anything, the jubilee system was similar to feudalism. And it theoretically would have helped prevent any worse form of feudalism, whereby one individual owned all the land, made himself king, and turned everyone into slaves.

As you say, the purpose of the jubilee was to help establish a middle class, which is useful for a civil society. But I would say that our universal education in this country confers at least as great a benefit as the jubilee. We absolutely do not need a more pinko-commie theology.

[beanfarmer]

The issue is that we need more doctors; not that we need the same doctors working harder more for less money. The high wages of a doctor are well deserved for the years of training that it takes to become one and are needed as motivation to get more people to choose that career. The bigger issue I think is that we live in a litigious society where the lawyers are leeching the system for all it's worth. The amount that doctors need to pay for malpractice insurance is enormous. That isn't to say that malpractice isn't a problem, but that we as a nation are partly responsible for the problem.

My brother tried to get in med school, but they would not let him in. The reason was he had a MSEE degree. Think for a minute about that. They turned down someone who had an advanced electrical engineering degree in a world where doctors have to have to work with a plathora of ever increasing electrical equipment.

Let me tell you about my most recent stay at a hospital. I am a quadriplegic and I had to have a bowel movement. They could not fit my roll on bathroom chair over the toilet so they put me in my room where i fell and got a hair line fracture in my femur. They didn't realize it and put me on my side to clean my butt. I was in intense pain but the only sound l could make was low moans due to paralysis of my upper bulbar region. The pain caused me to vomit giving me aspiration pneumonia. I could have gotten millions if I sued, or probably hundreds of thousands after the lawers took their share of the loot.

I did not sue, because I had leaned forward to relieve pressure on my butt. They should limmit malpractice so doctors would not have to pay such high insurance or do like the amish who don't sue at all. Think how much money we would save if there were only public defenders and prosicuters.
[QUOTE=themuzicman;3413569]So, by asking this question, I assume you are abandoning your initial argument.

[QUOTE=themuzicman;3413569]The answer to the question has to do with liberal legislation. In this case, the mega corporate welfare passed by Teddy Kennedy giving businesses a huge tax break to offer employees health insurance rather than increases in income. What's resulted is that health insurance "insures" things that ought not be insures, like doctor visits.

Why is this a problem? Glad you asked.
[QUOTE=themuzicman;3413569]
You see, insurance is business of accepting someone else's risk for profit. We insure our houses. The reason we do this is that most of us don't have enough equity to put $100,000 into losses if our houses burn down. So, we pay $800/year (or whatever the risk is) for an insurance company to assume that risk for us, and if that event happens, they pay for our losses.

However, a $120 doctor visit isn't low risk and isn't financially catastrophic. So, the two options are:

1) Pay the $120.
2) Pay the insurance company to cover their costs, take a profit, and then pay the $120.

Now, which is more? (If you didn't say #2, you need to go back to 1st grade math.)

So, ultimately, if insurance pays for something, it always costs more than paying for it oneself. The only reason a low risk, financially catastrophic event is a good cause for insurance is that insurance companies can pool 1000 people together, knowing that only 1 will actually take the loss in a given year, collect $110,000 in premiums, pay out the one $100,000 claim, and make a profit, and all 1000 people will have been protected against something for which 999 people won't experience. If nearly 100% of people experience an event, then paying the premium to "cover" this event would cost more than paying for it out of one's own pocket.

So, we can see why "health insurance" for doctor visits is a bad idea.

What if paying for the doctor visit means he has no money for rent?

But wait, there's more.

Consider for a moment two doctors. One has a small waiting room with a nurse that doubles as a receptionist. He has two waiting rooms, and so he frequently gets behind in seeing patients. He charges $25/visit.

The other has a large building with vaunted ceilings, a large flat screen TV, a receptionist in addition to a nurse, free coffee, a large play area for the kids, and up to date magazine subscriptions. He charges $100/visit.

Doctors have the same education, same experience.

HHw, if we're all paying for our own visits, some will choose the $25 doctor, some the $100 doctor, based upon their financial situation.

However, if we're all paying $20 copay, we all wind up at the $100 doctor, and the $25 doctor has to become a $110 doctor with better amenities in order to attract patients back to his practice.

And, in response, the $100 doctor now charges $120 for even MORE amenities, and so on and so forth.

What planet do you live on? Doctors have not charged 25 probably since the 1950s. Any doctor who charged 25 a visit would be swamped with patients whether or not there was a long wait or not. I doubt you could get a vet to see your cat for under 70, so I really doubt you could get a doctor to spend 30 minuts with you for under 150. I can not remember when I waited less than 10 minuts in a waiting room.

If you want to know how someone making $8.50/hr can pay for a $120 doctor visit, ask why they're still making $8.50/hr (because their wage increases went into more health "insurance", and ask why it's $120 to see the doctor (because the health "insurance" system has forced him to charge more to compete for patients.) So, realistically, government run (and government forced) socialism fails for these very reasons, and disparity between poor and rich exists because of government imposition on the economy.

I really doubt anyone making 8.50 has health insurance. l know my son nor my blue collar brother don't have it.

And all this occurs as the federal government takes from 20-60+% of our incomes in taxes to waste on these programs.

And, if you look at any objective study, conservative Christians are the most giving, most generous people in America. They are essentially the only ones that actually give their own money. The liberal/socialists specialize in giving away other people's money, that they take by force, using the power of the state.

With out these programs many people would suffer and die, would that be more Christian? The real problem is getting rid of the waste bureaucracy causes. And it would not hurt to stop giving billions to Muslem countries who hate us. This reminds me of something I wrote a long time ago in a galexy far far away.

Garage Logic

A recent issue of "Readers Digest" contained an article about the American garage as the spawning ground of many inventions we enjoy today.　 In a garage Henry Ford built his first automobile, Buddy Holly and "The Crickets" practiced their first song, and Hewlett and Packard built their first computing machine.

What would happen if Hewlett and Packard had tried the same thing today?　 Would they have violated some local ordinance about light commercial zoning?　 Would Buddy Holly be cited for noise pollution?　 Would Ford be fined because his garage was not engineered to handle the situation if his fledgling automobile leaked some fuel?　 Having experienced problems because of excessive ordinances I can imagine what Ford would have run into today.　 It might go something like this……

After deciding that the kitchen sink was too small a laboratory in which to develop his internal combustion engine, Ford begins clearing the coal out of the backyard coal shed.　 He makes a pile next to the shed and begins work on his first automobile.　 As he is constructing the frame of his invention there is a knock on the door of the coal shed.　 A neatly dressed man introduces himself as a building safety inspector.　

"Excuse me Mr ….er um"

"Ford, Henry Ford" Ford says extending a soiled hand.

"Yes, ahh, Mr. Ford."

Says the neatly dressed man as he wipes his now soiled hand on his hanky.

"Do you know who put that coal there?"

"Why?　 Is there a problem?"

"Yes,　 there is an ordinance prohibiting the outside storage of fuel."

"I suppose I could put it in my basement."

"Not without an inspection of your house and the installation of a sprinkling system"

"How about if I just have it hauled away?"

"That would be fine as long as you use a licensed fuel hauler.　 May I ask what you are doing in that coal shed?"

"I'm building a horseless carriage."　

Says Henry, beaming with pride.

"Well you can't do that here."

"Why not?"

"You aren’t zoned for manufacturing."

"Er,, What do I have to do to get zoned for manufacturing?"

"You would start the process with applying for a variance."　

"And then I would be rezoned?"

"Maybe, if it fit with the zoning commission's plans for this area."

"If I got it rezoned could I build my horseless carriage?"

"Yes."

"OK, I'll start the process tomorrow"

Enthused Henry as he turned and went back into the shed to work.　 The building inspector, craning his neck in an attempt to see around Henry into the darkened shed mumbles,

"Of course, even if you get zoning changed you can't build anything in that shed."

"What?" says Henry bumping his head on the low doorway as he does an about face.

"Why not?"

"That structure was designed for cold storage of solid combustibles.　 You would have to build a structure designed for light manufacturing." the building inspector states.　 "What kind of fuel do you propose to use for your horseless carriage?"

"Gasoline.　 It's a common cleaning solvent."

"That won't do at all you know."　 Says the building inspector as he taps his pencil on a clipboard produced from a small carpet covered satchel he was carrying. 　

"What if you spilled some?　 What about the fumes?　 You haven't already procured some have you?"

"Uh no.　 not as such." Henry stammers as he deftly pushes a small red can near his feet behind some weeds.

"This sounds far more complicated and expensive than I thought." continues Henry.　 "I had better call some friends over tonight and discuss this and see if we can raise the necessary capital to do this legally."

"I'm afraid I can't let you do that Mr. Ford."　 interjects the building inspector sternly.

"Your house is zoned and built as a residential dwelling.　 If you want to have any meetings here you would have to have handicapped accessibility and fire exits and men's and women's bathrooms."

"You mean we can't just use the outhouse?"

An incredulous look from the inspector is all the answer Henry gets.

He had dreams of a horseless carriage in front of every house.　 Increases in national productivity and shorter travel time.　 A nation brought closer as the distance between people seemed to shrink.　 Parents getting home from work in time to play with their children, and all because they were able to move quickly, safely and cheaply from one place to another.

"But, How would people get around if I can't build my invention?"　 Henry blurts out.

"Get a horse Mr. Ford." 　states the building inspector matter of factly as he turns and walks away.

If Ford or Hewlett and Packard or Buddy Holly had to deal with the regulations stifling creativity today we might still be riding horses, adding on our fingers and have never heard of "Peggy Sue".

Example of Garage Logic in action:

A few years ago a group of college age kids in Rochester Minnesota were troubled by the lack of positive recreational activities for kids in their town.　 In stead of just complaining about it, they pledged their own money and time to build a building that could house a skate ramp and where Christian Alternative bands could perform on occasion.　 A rural location near town was offered them and a loan was obtained for materials and the kids themselves provided the labor.　 Kids began coming to "The Barn" as they called it, in stead of driving out on some gravel road to get drunk.　 The skate crowd began to skate in the new facility in lue of alleys and down town parking ramps after hours.　 The dream of these few kids who saw a problem and invented a way to fix it was becoming a reality, but it didn’t last for long.

As the new hangout became popular it drew the attention of county zoning and building safety departments. The structure had been architect designed as a storage building and they thought it needed improvements before the kids could skate in it.　 The first suggestions were reasonable but as more and more requirements were added the cost eventually grew to several times the cost of the building.　 The building was eventually tagged making it illegal for anyone to enter it, or even to use it for storage.　　Kids are back to skating in the streets and parking ramps late at night.　 The Alternative Christian concerts are gone, and there is a group of kids, older, wiser, and a bit more cynical than they were a few years ago.

I would encourage you to read "The Dominion Covenant" and "Tools of Dominion" by Gary North an economist who writes explicitly from a reconstructionist perspective. Biblical economics are built on personal property rights beginning with ones ability to voluntarily negotiate and exchnage of his or her time (in the form of labor) for services, goods, or money. I would also suggest to you that the reason the members of the early church sold their property and shared it was because they new the dectrution of Jerusalem was imminent and their property would soon be worthless. The church did not ask for anyone to surrender their property or the profits from such sales. Ananias was explicitly told by Peter that the land was his to keep or sell as he chose and the money from the sale was his to do with as he pleased. The love of money, not money itself, is called the root of all evil and propsperity is often framed in the Bible as a blessing from God and evidence of Godly living.

The Bible explicitly tells us that theft is wrong. Governments taking money form one person or one business entity to give it to another person or busines is theft. Especially in the U.S. The U.S. is a representative republic (this was the form of government existent under Moeses), not a one-person-one-vote democracy or a socialist entity of any form. It has a specific Constitution that limits the role of the federal government and specifiies its domain. Maintaining a centralized bank is not within the Constitutional mandates. Neither taxation of income, property taxes (which amounts to rent), or sales taxes (and a whole host of other taxes) are not constitutional or Biblical. Neither are federal education, health care, welfare, or intra-state commerce. Taxes should be collected locally for local purposes, the state should collect from the municipalities and the federal government from the states. This is how the U.S. Constitution originally established it (state senators were not elected; they were chosen by the state to represent the state not the citizenry).
I suggest you visit americanvision.org. They're pretty radical but whether or not you agree there will bound to be some exegesis that raises awareness of scriptural economics and current politcal/economic pathology. Start here: http://americanvision.org/?s=economics, http://americanvision.org/category/c...ights-project/ or http://americanvision.org/page/2/?s=socialism. There is some overlap of articles in the links and a lot of reading but I think you'll find it thought provoking.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 ¶ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Your post reminds me of an article I wrote for the Wittenburg Door Magazine (the only magazine with low enough standards low enough to publish something the Beanfarmer wrote.)

The Health and Wealth Elevangelist's Quick Reference Guide to Problem Passages

Isa 5:8 "Woe unto them that join house to house, [that] lay field to field, till [there be] no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

Don’t join the little houses together. Tear them down so you have room for one really big one.

Le 25:13 "In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession."

If one of your followers comes to you destitute and asks for help, tell him to just go back to their own house.

Ne 5:11 "Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth [part] of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them."

Applies only to the IRS.

Mr 11:15 "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;"

Note that they were selling animals, not jewelry or DVDs or memberships at Christian theme parks. No telievangelist that I know of has ever hawked livestock on TV. And "money changers"? No need for them here. We accept all forms of currency including most major credit cards.

Acts 2:44-45 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

Communist. This verse is best ignored. If you must deal with it you can point out that these were the same people Paul sent relief money to later. If they had kept their possessions or else centralized them by giving to a leading evangelist perhaps they would not have needed charity.

1Corth 1:26-29 "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

Of course, this does not apply to sports stars, media types, and people who have made lots of money. If any of them become Christians God immediately chooses them to be leaders in the ministry.

James 5:1-3 "Go to now, [ye] rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon [you]. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days."

This verse is better left alone because it is so hard to understand. If you must deal with it, it applies only to those who horde money that should have been sent to us.

Mr 6:8 "And commanded them that they should take nothing for [their] journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in [their] purse:"

Televangelists are not to carry lots of material things when they travel, not even cash. A really good line of credit can get you anything you need once you get there without all that excess airport baggage handling.

Ac 4:32 "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

Just skip over this and go on to verse 37.

Ac 4:37 "Having land, sold [it], and brought the money, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet."

NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

1Ti 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

You can have lots of money, you can make lots of money, you can spend lots of money on nice things for yourself. You just have to avoid loving it while you're doing it.