In a recent conversation with a friend- I made a joke about a few of Barack Obama's policies. I said on Facebook: "Under Obama's plan, anyone with more than 249 Facebook friends will have to redistribute the remainder to less popular users." My friend wrote back a comment to me, part of which said, "...You're right, survival of the fittest. Darwin was right. Jesus had some cute ideas and all but that stuff isn't always convenient..." I actually found that comment to be pretty interesting. So I want to make it the topic of my blog. Let's talk about one of Jesus' "cute ideas."
For the sake of a refresher course, let's review it- it is only a few verses:
Matthew 25:
15 And unto one he gave five talents , to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant : thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given , and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Well, nobody says it better than Jesus- let's be honest. For the sake of current-day application, I will expound. Jesus chose to give each of the three people a certain number of talents. One received ten, another received two and another received only one. Both he that received ten and he that received five returned with double what they had been given, while the one that received one returned with the same only.
I don't look at this talent so as to draw a conclusion about the number of talents that we have each received. We each have been allotted what we need. I will simply say that we are required to return with profit, so to speak. One man hid his talent and did nothing with it- Jesus said, it would have been better off making interest with bankers. When the man with one talent returned having made nothing from his one, he lost that which he had and it was given to the one that had made ten with his ten.
Our lives is all that we really have. We have the ability to do whatever we want to with it. From Hitler to Mother Theresa, we choose who to be. From Warren Buffet to the extremely low income households. There are exceptions- but for the most part, the reason that people struggle in life is because they make poor decisions- and they have their "talent" from them. I am not saying that everyone has equal opportunity at birth- we are all born into different circumstances, but for those who choose to live a life and make decisions that carry the consequences of difficulty, hardship and bondage- then they should live with those negative consequences. When people choose to live a life that brings wealth, freedom and ease- then they should be able to live with those positive consequences.
Positive/Negative Choices------->Positive/Negative Consequences
In this day in age, there are many that suffer needlessly- it is horrific to think of so many of the travesties that have occurred and are occurring in this world and in our nation. My heart and prayers go out to those that suffer by no choice of their own.
Tyranny, oppression, bondage, unnecessary war, genocide and hatred are all examples of needless suffering, there will be a day of reckoning for those who have caused such things. In many cases- these things are needless and hateful, they are Godless and horrifying.
I recognize that there are millions who legitimately suffer. How could we not?
When I consider this country's future plans to redistribute wealth, to socialize medicine and overhauling education- I am greatly concerned for my own future. So, first of all- let me admit, yes- I am self-motivated and self-interested in this topic. But why shouldn't I be? I am 25 years old, and I feel that I have a very bright future in the world of business. I know that I will be a great contributor to stimulate commerce. Also people that currently do and will in the future work beneath me will be able to generate significant income to provide for themselves and their families. If I am a "successful business man" and create jobs and endorse a free exchange of money in my business, then that is good for me, it is good for those that work for me, and it is good for our nation.
Success and money are not finite- it is there for the taking and there to be made. That is a capitalist mentality. People tell me that our President-Elect is not a socialist. Now, that may be- but he certainly has plenty of socialistic policies and plans to implement a more socialistic governmental shift. I don't think that we are going to be Marxist or anything- but I do oppose higher taxation that would redistribute earnings to people who did not make as much.
Michelle Obama said on April 9th, 2008:
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
That is like taking the talents from the man who had ten and made ten more, and then taking his talents and giving it to the man who buried his. I don't know if he meant something different than what it sounds like- but, it is a little hard to misinterpret "spread the wealth around."
Why is it the Government's job to do that? We need to elect officials that incentivize lower income households to generate more income, and raise themselves out of poverty...not continually legitimize mediocrity by supporting people's choice to not make more of themselves and for themselves. The fact is, under a system of wealth redistribution, the Government perpetuates the problem of poverty. People will always view it as acceptable to remain in poverty and to not rise above and elevate themselves when they are be supported by others.
Is health care broken, yes. Is our education system over funded and underachieving, yes. I do not argue that our current systems are not broken...I am simply saying, that by growing the government, we as a people lose control. We need a new solution- I don't believe that further socialization of government is that solution.
Well, nobody says it better than Jesus- let's be honest. For the sake of current-day application, I will expound. Jesus chose to give each of the three people a certain number of talents. One received ten, another received two and another received only one. Both he that received ten and he that received five returned with double what they had been given, while the one that received one returned with the same only.
I don't look at this talent so as to draw a conclusion about the number of talents that we have each received. We each have been allotted what we need. I will simply say that we are required to return with profit, so to speak. One man hid his talent and did nothing with it- Jesus said, it would have been better off making interest with bankers. When the man with one talent returned having made nothing from his one, he lost that which he had and it was given to the one that had made ten with his ten.
Our lives is all that we really have. We have the ability to do whatever we want to with it. From Hitler to Mother Theresa, we choose who to be. From Warren Buffet to the extremely low income households. There are exceptions- but for the most part, the reason that people struggle in life is because they make poor decisions- and they have their "talent" from them. I am not saying that everyone has equal opportunity at birth- we are all born into different circumstances, but for those who choose to live a life and make decisions that carry the consequences of difficulty, hardship and bondage- then they should live with those negative consequences. When people choose to live a life that brings wealth, freedom and ease- then they should be able to live with those positive consequences.
Positive/Negative Choices------->Positive/Negative Consequences
In this day in age, there are many that suffer needlessly- it is horrific to think of so many of the travesties that have occurred and are occurring in this world and in our nation. My heart and prayers go out to those that suffer by no choice of their own.
Tyranny, oppression, bondage, unnecessary war, genocide and hatred are all examples of needless suffering, there will be a day of reckoning for those who have caused such things. In many cases- these things are needless and hateful, they are Godless and horrifying.
I recognize that there are millions who legitimately suffer. How could we not?
When I consider this country's future plans to redistribute wealth, to socialize medicine and overhauling education- I am greatly concerned for my own future. So, first of all- let me admit, yes- I am self-motivated and self-interested in this topic. But why shouldn't I be? I am 25 years old, and I feel that I have a very bright future in the world of business. I know that I will be a great contributor to stimulate commerce. Also people that currently do and will in the future work beneath me will be able to generate significant income to provide for themselves and their families. If I am a "successful business man" and create jobs and endorse a free exchange of money in my business, then that is good for me, it is good for those that work for me, and it is good for our nation.
Success and money are not finite- it is there for the taking and there to be made. That is a capitalist mentality. People tell me that our President-Elect is not a socialist. Now, that may be- but he certainly has plenty of socialistic policies and plans to implement a more socialistic governmental shift. I don't think that we are going to be Marxist or anything- but I do oppose higher taxation that would redistribute earnings to people who did not make as much.
Michelle Obama said on April 9th, 2008:
Barack Obama Said,"Most Americans don't want much."
"They don't want the whole pie, there are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."...
"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
That is like taking the talents from the man who had ten and made ten more, and then taking his talents and giving it to the man who buried his. I don't know if he meant something different than what it sounds like- but, it is a little hard to misinterpret "spread the wealth around."
Why is it the Government's job to do that? We need to elect officials that incentivize lower income households to generate more income, and raise themselves out of poverty...not continually legitimize mediocrity by supporting people's choice to not make more of themselves and for themselves. The fact is, under a system of wealth redistribution, the Government perpetuates the problem of poverty. People will always view it as acceptable to remain in poverty and to not rise above and elevate themselves when they are be supported by others.
Is health care broken, yes. Is our education system over funded and underachieving, yes. I do not argue that our current systems are not broken...I am simply saying, that by growing the government, we as a people lose control. We need a new solution- I don't believe that further socialization of government is that solution.
We have many social programs that are great and currently work. Roads, Libraries, and so many others. However, there is a line crossed when you completely supports income of another person
from what is deemed as discretionary funds of others. Welfare, unemployment and disability are often abused by those who are completely capable to provide for themselves. Reform of these social programs are absolutely required.So, what can we do right now to start funding the legitimate problems without having to have net higher taxes. (I say net, because there are so many tax programs that are starting and ending that both raise and lower different types of taxes)
End the war in Iraq- 10 Billion Dollars a month
I don't understand why we spend so much money overseas when we have a broken core to our current systems.
Well, this quickly became my longest blog posting. It isn't meant to be anti-Obama, it is really meant to be anti socialism, especially with respect to the redistribution of wealth. People need to be responsible for themselves and those whom they choose to be responsible for. I love this country, I hope to someday love its leader.
I bet that there are many of you who disagree with me in this blog in particular. I welcome your difference in opinion, and I respect it as well. Best wishes. Post comments guys- I want to hear from you.
-1.JPG)
13 comments:
My ambitions in life will probably never earn me enough money to even get taxed under Obama's plans. But you know what? I have no right to the pie you make. As you said, financial success is not finite; there's no splitting of some mysterious pie made of nothing by no one. Those who work and produce make that pie, and some make lots of pies. If I happen to want some of your pie or a pie just like it, that gives me no right to steal it. My ends do not justify the seizure of your means.
I could go on and really get on my soapbox to preach the evils of socialism, but I won't. I think we'll see it in action soon enough, though I wonder, how long will it take before people learn the difference between getting money and making money?
I should mention the danger of socializing medicine. I worked hard to get into pharmacy school, and people spend 8 years or more of their life preparing for a productive and lucrative career in the health care professions. Once our incomes are cut because of universal health care, who's going to sacrifice so much time and money to enter a health care profession if they can make as good of a living doing something easier. Everyone will have health care, but its quality and availability will be lessened. Plus, having such easy access to health care will clog our emergency rooms with cases not requiring a physician's care.
I feel that the idea of distributing wealth goes against the very foundations of the American dream.
Alex-
I loved your comment here:
"how long will it take before people learn the difference between getting money and making money?"
That is so well said. Seriously, the problem is people's perception of being rewarded too. My friend Jimmy wrote me and said:
"The reason Americans have been so prosperous is not because government guarantees shelter, food, or other basic needs as rights"
America has been a successful is because capitalism and entrepreneurship have always been incentivised. Well said my friends.
I think that you make some very good points and I agree with you. In my institue class we talked about the law of consecration, does this make anyone else think of that? I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's plan because I don't think that it would work at this level. I also don't think that people who don't work hard should get a hand out from those who do. We do need change though because obviously our country isn't thriving like it should.
All the events in the past 6 months makes me realize that the end is near and the world is going to continue to get even worse.
Matt glad to see that you are around. We miss you and your oppinnions!
Well said Matt.
I honestly believe that those who have a large pie would give it freely to those who have none if it were not taken from them in the first place.
That said, it is important to not make everything completely black and white. People fall on hard times (even when they are trying to make some pie) and it's the job of our country to make sure it's citizens are taken care of.
I don't believe in the welfare system this country has adopted but certainly do believe in helping people get back on their feet so they can contribute to a good capitalistic society.
Matt, you're the best!
Eric,
I wish I knew what Eric this was- but I'd like to respond. I am glad that you agree with my blog- I do see one fault in your response back...you said, "it's the job of our country to make sure it's citizens are taken care of. "
Well- let me say- that is totally wrong. Our country does not guarantee food, clothing and shelter- it only guarantees "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- and that other's (including government) shall not infringe upon that." So, no my friend- it is NOT the job of our country to "take care" of it's citizen's. That is exactly my point- it is the job of the citizens to take care of themselves! Hahah- I see this so often. This is a pretty common confusion. Thanks for the comment Eric...but I had to clarify.
Sierra- the law of consecration is completely different. God sent us to this earth to learn to become selfless, caring, and determined. This is what the law of consecration requires. Pure socialism may seem to be the same thing, but it removes any desire for a wealthy man to give of himself because it's already being taken away or any desire to stay wealthy because it will just be taken away. In the poor man, since it takes a lot of hard work to get out of poverty, being bottle fed by a government keeps them from any desire to be a hard worker, not to mention the selfishness of being content with receiving more than giving.
As for taxing the wealthy- economic tough times in our country come because people are out of jobs. The solution would obviously NOT be to cripple those creators of jobs with more taxation- i.e. taxing the wealthy more. They already pay almost all of the taxes already anyway. Sheesh.
Russ Elkins
Matt,
I thought you made some good points. I wanted to add one. In fact, it comes from the 15 verses immediately after the passage of scripture you quoted:
Matt 25:
31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
If the principles of Christianity are the foundation of this country, which they are, we must learn to balance all of Christ's sometimes contradictory teachings.
Diana,
First of all, I miss you. If anyone can make a good argument for the other side, it would be you.
I agree, that the Lord requires us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry etc...but he requires us to do this by choice, and not my government regulation. What blessings will I receive in heaven when the government has decided for me what I should give? What blessings will I receive when giving becomes involuntary? I say, none.
Everyone should read: The Proper Role of Government By Ezra Taft Benson. I am not anti giving, I am anti taking. Charity is not charity when it is imposed by law on society.
Matt,
Thanks for the response. I agree that it won't do you much good in heaven if you're forced to give. I guess my concern is that, as Americans, we're not giving enough voluntarily. There are still far too many people in this country (not to mention around the world) who are hungry, naked, sick, and forgotten. Katrina showed us that. My concern is that too many times the wealthy live so far removed from the poor that we don't do our duty to help, mostly because we don't know exactly how. Last week only one block from my office, I saw a mother and three small children carrying clothes and food from the homeless shelter to who-knows-where, and I did nothing. What should I have done? Fed them? Clothed them? Invited them to stay at my small apartment? Instead I told myself that I pay my tithes and fast offerings and that someday I would be in a position to do more. The problem with that is that they were still hungry, naked, and homeless. And I don't think that the scripture I quoted implies we only have a responsibility over other members of the church. So, in my opinion, governmental programs are more effective, because they provide a systematic way for people to receive the help they need. A lot of people. And I think that if we collectively care for people in need, then our country as a whole will be blessed. Just my two cents. :-)
I enjoy reading the views from different sides. I see things much more like Matt does. We should take care of each other better than we do, but we don't. I wish nobody would get left behind, but fact of the matter is that, if we don't take care of it with generosity, it can't get done. The government never has and never will be able to really "take care" of people in any way that's efficient enough to not bankrupt us all. Wouldn't it be nice if the taxes taken for that kind of thing was put in the hands of a bunch of non-profit organizations.
Post a Comment