What the bible says about conservatism


Every time the government proposes spending money, particularly to benefit the poor, we encounter the same objections, primarily from conservatives:

  1. It’s socialism.
  2. It adds to the U.S. federal debt.
  3. The government should live within its means.
  4. We shouldn’t do it unless it’s fully paid for
  5. Why should we taxpayers have to pay for these people m
  6. I had to pay for my college; why shouldn’t they
  7. If you give them money they won’t work
  8. They’re lazy welfare mammas

Let us quickly run through the first five listed objections because they merely are statements of economic ignorance.

The linked articles are examples. They were written by people who have no knowledge of economics or have an ulterior motive for lying.

Every time you read an article claiming that federal spending is socialism, unaffordable, beyond the government’s means, must be fully paid for, or taxpayer-supported, know this: The writer does not know he/she is talking about or is a liar.

No alternatives.

It isn’t socialism, because socialism is: production and distribution are run by the government. Only a few things in America are socialism. Examples: The military, VA hospitals, national highway system, national parks, federal agencies.

The “federal debt” isn’t “debt” any more than the contents of your bank safe-deposit box are bank “debt.”

The “federal debt” is the total of deposits into T-security accounts, that never are touched by the federal government.

These accounts are not loans. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign and so, having the unlimited ability to create dollars, does not borrow dollars. These accounts are paid off upon maturity simply by returning the money in them.

They are no burden on the government or on federal taxpayers.

Because the government has the infinite ability to create its own sovereign currency, merely by passing laws, it has no “means” to live within. It has infinite “means.”

All federal spending is “fully paid for.” No federal creditor ever is cheated. The government creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it wishes to pay a creditor.

Unlike state and local taxes, which do fund state and local governments, the purpose of federal taxes is not to fund federal spending, but rather to control the economy by taxing things the government wishes to discourage, and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward.

Having referenced objections #1- #6 as ignorant or devious, we will address the title of this post, “What the bible says about conservatism” by reviewing objections #6 – #8.

Ironically, the “religious right,” as exemplified by those who identify as white, Evangelical Christians, people who are especially worshiping of the Bible — they seem to be among the strongest objectors.

And yet, as we review some of the appropriate words from the bible, we hardly can link the ostensible beliefs of the religious with their actions.

The notion, “If I didn’t, why should he” is as far from the Bible, and especially far from the beliefs of Jesus, as it is possible to stray.

Then we come to “If you give them money, they won’t work.” The claim that we should judge the worthiness of the poor before we help them, is not what the Bible tells us.

The work requirement really says, “I, in my goodness and wisdom, have decided that you and your impoverished children are not worthy of aid until you prove otherwise to my personal satisfaction.” It is a level of cruelty that seems far at odds with the Bible’s teachings.

Because most poor people readily will choose to work in well-paying, desirable jobs, the forced work idea really translates into the demand that the poor must accept mean jobs for mean wages — or starve.

And finally, we come to the “welfare mamma,” evoking a fat, probably black, woman lazily lounging on a rocking chair, eating and living the good life.

It not only is an insult to humanity and to God (“Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker”), but it is wrong. The poor do not live good lives. They live painful lives.

They are thwarted by bigotry, against their color, their beliefs, their intelligence, their appearance, and/or their situation. The haves despise the have-nots.

Today, the liberal-leaning have proposed many programs that would help the economy, while helping the poor. It is this latter function that the conservatives resist.

As a broad generalization, one legitimately can say, the conservatives hate the poor.

Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but the primary resistance to aiding the poor is coming, and in recent years has come, from the right-wing — the “religious” right-wing — they who believe most ardently in Jesus.

What Would Mother Do

My recently departed wife was the prototypical good person. She was a loving person. A charitable person, a knowledgable person. So kind and astute was she, that our entire family followed a mantra when evaluating life’s decisions. We would ask ourselves “What would mother do?”

One of my grandsons even created a memorial coin, on the one side of which are the initials “WWMD” (What Would Mother Do) and on the other side of which are her initials “PRGM” (Phyllis Rae Garber Mitchell).

So now, I ask you who consider yourself to be a religious, lover of your God, when discussing the poverty aids being proposed, (also sneeringly referred to as “welfare,”) — I ask you to think, “WWGD.” What would God do?

As a religious person, you know the answer. God expects you to do more than praise Him in your church. He doesn’t need your praise. He will judge you by your actions.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

8 thoughts on “What the bible says about conservatism

  1. Great post, Rodger.

    One of the things that has always confused me is how the religious right and even mainstream Christian conservatives seem to lose all knowledge and understanding of the Bible when it comes to helping “the least of these”. The only explanation I can see is that they are, to a person, sociopaths. I remember 20 to 30 years ago when WWJD bracelets became popular. Sadly, most of the folks wearing them have no idea what Jesus would do.

    Your quote in the top box from Matthew 7:12 is a restatement of the famous answer given by Rebbe Hillel when he was asked to describe the meaning of Judaism while standing on one foot. He said, with foot raised, “Do not do unto others that which is abhorrent to you. That is the law, all else is commentary.”.

    I have always been fascinated that one of the earliest expressions of the Golden Rule was framed as a prohibition against bad actions, not as entreaty to do good. There is a huge difference. Perhaps if various religions had stayed with the original framing instead of turning it into it’s converse, we would all be better off.
    ——–

    There is a typo: Paragraph 14: “we will address the title of this post, “What the bible says about liberalism””. I suspect you changed to title and forgot about the later reference.

    Like

  2. I didn’t quite realize that the infrastructure and manufacturing setup of our military – which the right-wingers love – falls within the frame of socialism. Thanks for a very important point reminder.

    Like

  3. Very well-said, Rodger! Of course, conservatives would (when they aren’t too busy foaming at the mouth) most likely counter that Jesus allegedly never intended for “Big Government” to help the poor, but rather it should be done instead by individuals with their own resources in their local communities. Because reasons. Or something. The fancy name for that principle is “subsidiarity”, or as I like to call it, “Grover Cleveland Syndrome” in reference to its namesake’s denial of federal drought relief for farmers because said reasons.

    I would personally respond that Monetary
    Sovereignty makes that notion completely obsolete, as truly an entity with literally infinite money like our federal government should spend far more to help the less fortunate compared with individuals and communities with merely finite money and resources. Just like stronger people should logically do the heavier lifting compared with weaker people. And I would also note that they are taking Jesus’s words out of context and worse, also putting anachronistic words in his mouth.

    Conservatives also luuurrrve to hawk the “don’t feed the animals” argument, namely that it breeds dependency of the poor upon government assistance. To which I would respond, “So you’re literally comparing poor people to nonhuman animals now? How very enlightened of you!” and/or “That’s a pretty loud dog whistle you got there, buddy.”

    QED

    Like

    1. I don’t think Jesus cared who fed the poor, the king, or his subjects, so long as the poor were fed. That’s the real point: Help the poor and don’t worry about whether this makes them “dependent.”

      We all are “dependent,” which is why humans are social animals. We depend on each other. The very rich depend on us to send them money, and somehow we don’t mind them being dependent on our money.

      But when they send us money, the rich become concerned about our dependency. It’s called “Gap Psychology.”

      Like

      1. Very well-said, Rodger. Jesus certainly did not specify who should feed the poor, so long as *someone* feeds them.

        Indeed, the ultra-rich 0.1% are literally the most dependent of all, on both the money and the labor of the remaining 99.9%, and the hypocrisy in that regard is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

        Jesus certainly had some choice words for that rarefied echelon. A camel passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s