Is it Really Better -- Even Financially -- to Give than to Receive?

Brian is up to his passive-aggressive ways here. He, like Wallace, play the "God isn't a Republican or a Democrat, but He agrees with every plank in the radical Left platform" game. Hey, why not behave like men and just say what you believe and defend it?

You are advancing your Liberal views while pretending to be non-partisan.

As usual, your biblical premise is flawed. The Good Samaritan gave of his own time and money. You insert yourselves as a new "hero" character that asks Caesar to force the Samaritan to "give" his time and money. Now he can't be "good" because he's doing it out of obligation.

Why can't more people see how flawed theological liberalism is?

you think it's theological liberalism because you're so extreme right. Please go somewhere else and spread your ....

"Is it better to give than to receive?" or "Is it better to use the government to take your money from you to give to others than for you to keep your own money to give to others of your volition?"

Government-forced 'charity' prevents the rich and others from realizing the truth of the words "it is better to give than to receive." Let's try to stick to the original meaning of that teaching, please.

Is it better to borrow from China for your children and grandchildren to pay off in the future, than to receive?

We are not giving, we are borrowing to give to others, whether that is spending on war or welfare. Since it is not capital investment, the payors (our grandchildren) will receive no tangible or intangible benefit from this spending, just an assurance with no backing that says, "Trust us, when YOU need it some day, it will be here for you."

I know it's probably hard for you or anyone else who hasn't lived in poverty to understand, but the rich getting richer doesn't help the poor. Putting more money into corporate hands merely lengthens the gap between the rich and the poor. Your attitude of providing jobs by bettering yourself is condescending toward any person who is poor, a sort of class colonialism.
It would benefit you to read some liberation theology so that you could better understand equality and human dignity. Social and government programs can be effective (and in a sense liberating), particularly if they emphasize education.
Mclaren is right. The modern idea that I will help you out by helping myself is antiquated and has no place in Christian theology.

"Shouldn't we re-evaluate how effective that huge "investment in the rich" has turned out in light of the investment banking crisis and the ensuing economic crash?"

You are claiming that by supporting tax cuts Republicans want to hurt the poor and help the rich. But there is some truth to the claim that tax cuts for the rich help the poor. Of course, to understand it, you would have to have had a least an intro course to economics and very few people on this blog can even spell economics. But it goes like this: the only way to increase the wages of the working poor is to increase their productivity at work. No economist in the 300 year history of the science has come up with another method. Who has the money to invest in new businesses or buy new equipment for workers? The poor workers certainly don't. Only the owners of businesses, who invest profits, or people with savings to loan to business owners have that kind of money. All other things being equal, when wealthy people pay less in taxes they tend to invest more in businesses. Greater investment in business causes higher wages and is the only way to raise wages in the long run. Capitalism demonstrates the fact that workers and capitalists depend upon each other; they do not oppose each other as socialism asserts.

Contrary to popular wisdom, unions don't raise wages for anyone but the immediate union workers. And they do so at the expense of other workers.

Socialists don't seem to care about raising wages, which I don't understand. All they care about is using the state to take from the rich and give a handout to the poor. Handouts have a role to play in helping the poor, but they should be a temporary measure. Long-term charity causes the poor to become dependent on them instead of becoming a self-reliant, productive member of society.

Tax cuts don't always raise wages for a number of reasons. The latest Bush tax cuts certainly didn't. The money went into housing and stocks. But the tax cuts under Carter and Reagan revived investment, spurred the economy and got average wages going again until about 2000.

BlueDeacon: "I know of no company in the 1980s that actually hired workers after taxes were cut as suggested"

So how did unemployment fall for 10+% in the early 80's to about 4% in the mid-90's?

The "rich" are those making more than $850 per year -- that is, if you consider everyone on the planet -- http://www.globalrichlist.com/ . I'm pretty sure Brian and Jim have no intention of giving away everything except that, but hopefully they'll prove me wrong. But they'll gladly ask Caesar to take your money and count it as charity on their part.

If you really want income equality then we've got a long way to go.

"Your attitude of providing jobs by bettering yourself is condescending toward any person who is poor, a sort of class colonialism"

Sorry, but it sounds like you are the one pushing class warfare. By that sentance alone you must think that all business owners are fat-cats who sit in their office lighting cigars with $100 bills. Are you suggesting I hire people out of charity? If we were all non-profits, where would the government get the money it hands out

Bmac, I know you never reply to any of your posts, but PLEASE clarify exactly who the "rich" are????

I know it's probably hard for you or anyone else who has never owned a business or signed the front side of a pay-check to understand, but let me try and dumb it down as best I can...when my taxes are lowered and I have more money in my pocket, I INVEST more in my business, that means HIRING more people, and so on. One of the reasons commercial construction is now forcasting gloom and doom until 2012 is that we have no idea what this government is going to slap on us in the way of more and more and more taxes....healthcare included. Would you rather I hire people, or does the government take better care of them on unemployment?

For its pros and cons, I'll take trickle-down economics any day over your trickle-up poverty!

Is it better to borrow from China for your children and grandchildren to pay off in the future, than to receive?

We are not giving, we are borrowing to give to others, whether that is spending on war or welfare. Since it is not capital investment, the payors (our grandchildren) will receive no tangible or intangible benefit from this spending, just an assurance with no backing that says, "Trust us, when YOU need it some day, it will be here for you."

I know it's probably hard for you or anyone else who hasn't lived in poverty to understand, but the rich getting richer doesn't help the poor. Putting more money into corporate hands merely lengthens the gap between the rich and the poor. Your attitude of providing jobs by bettering yourself is condescending toward any person who is poor, a sort of class colonialism.
It would benefit you to read some liberation theology so that you could better understand equality and human dignity. Social and government programs can be effective (and in a sense liberating), particularly if they emphasize education.
Mclaren is right. The modern idea that I will help you out by helping myself is antiquated and has no place in Christian theology.

you think it's theological liberalism because you're so extreme right. Please go somewhere else and spread your ....

"Shouldn't we re-evaluate how effective that huge "investment in the rich" has turned out in light of the investment banking crisis and the ensuing economic crash?"

You are claiming that by supporting tax cuts Republicans want to hurt the poor and help the rich. But there is some truth to the claim that tax cuts for the rich help the poor. Of course, to understand it, you would have to have had a least an intro course to economics and very few people on this blog can even spell economics. But it goes like this: the only way to increase the wages of the working poor is to increase their productivity at work. No economist in the 300 year history of the science has come up with another method. Who has the money to invest in new businesses or buy new equipment for workers? The poor workers certainly don't. Only the owners of businesses, who invest profits, or people with savings to loan to business owners have that kind of money. All other things being equal, when wealthy people pay less in taxes they tend to invest more in businesses. Greater investment in business causes higher wages and is the only way to raise wages in the long run. Capitalism demonstrates the fact that workers and capitalists depend upon each other; they do not oppose each other as socialism asserts.

Contrary to popular wisdom, unions don't raise wages for anyone but the immediate union workers. And they do so at the expense of other workers.

Socialists don't seem to care about raising wages, which I don't understand. All they care about is using the state to take from the rich and give a handout to the poor. Handouts have a role to play in helping the poor, but they should be a temporary measure. Long-term charity causes the poor to become dependent on them instead of becoming a self-reliant, productive member of society.

Tax cuts don't always raise wages for a number of reasons. The latest Bush tax cuts certainly didn't. The money went into housing and stocks. But the tax cuts under Carter and Reagan revived investment, spurred the economy and got average wages going again until about 2000.

BlueDeacon: "I know of no company in the 1980s that actually hired workers after taxes were cut as suggested"

So how did unemployment fall for 10+% in the early 80's to about 4% in the mid-90's?