"Have you no sense of decency, sirs?" GOP Plays at Being for Rise in Minimum Wage

The Democrats have demonstrated that they value punishing the rich more than helping the poor, and would rather try to have a campaign issue than pass a minimum wage increase.

I believe that if the wealthy Democrats, some of them in the Senate, wanted to give more of their money to the government, all they would need to do is write a check and send it in. Instead, they spend their time trying to get the government to take money from other people. The hypocrisy meter is beeping loudly.

The bill was incredibly cynical. Since Bush arrived in office, Democrats have tamely gone along with almost all his tax cuts. This is the first administration, of either party, to repeatedly cut taxes in a time of war. The result has been a $300 billion deficit where we had a huge surplus just 6 years ago. That results in higher interest rates and a weaker dollar on the global market. The only tax giveaway the Democrats have fought has been the estate tax which is not a "death tax," but an anti-aristocracy tax. Cutting it would cost more billions in revenue and would erode any benefit of the tiny increase in the minimum wage.

Now the minimum wage can be voted on separately as the simple matter of justice that it is.

Michael,

How would less money for the government erode the benefits of an increased minimum wage?

Justice is letting the marketplace determine the price of things, including wages. There is no justice in having the government determine the price of things. Government officials are not nearly as intelligent as the the people (you and I included)who buy and sell.

Talk of hypocrisy when illicit tax cuts --$62 billion worth over ten years-- seek their balance on the poorest of the working poor? Someone needs to read the "social concern" generated by The OT's Book of Amos, the first biblical writer to address the inequities of the wealth-gap & its consequences if left unchallenged: hardly wealth redistribution as the "let them eat cake!" resident interloper wants to cry. And let us not miss the McCarthyist pun in this piece's title, which calls to mind one of the greatest fiascos in the whole of American History. It is hardly justice via the marketplace when the very richest openly solicit advantages that no dealmaking would dream, except at the hand of THIS George & his banditos. This...and with a billion a day going into the "Stay the course" quagmire that is Iraq, even admitted by the Generals this week in testimony. When will it be time to take to the street & do the necessary justice?

Hander,

Why do you take the book of Amos literally when you read most of the remainder of the Bible symbolically? Because it suits your purposes. If it suited your purposes better to read some symbolic meaning into Amos, you would do that.

Gary,
Lost revenue for the government increases the national debt. This increases interest rates and weakens the dollar's purchasing power abroad, which increases the trade deficit and further drives up interest rates. This slows economic growth (sometimes even causes recession or depression) and can lead to unemployment. If that doesn't happen, the higher interest rates at least push up inflation. All this erodes the purchasing power of the dollar, thus cancelling (quickly) any benefit of a modest increase in minimum wage, while transferring yet more vast wealth upwards--Robin Hood in Reverse.

Actually, Arden, taking nothing away from Amos' wonderful work, but economic justice concerns are found from Genesis to Revelation. The Sabbath Year and Jubilee Year of Leviticus 25 would freak any capitalist out.

We miss the strong economic justice message of Scripture, not because it is obscure, but because of the ideology of "free market fundamentalism" which makes us worship capitalism instead of the living God. There are, at best, 7 texts in both testaments which have anything remotely to do with "homosexuality," but God's concern for justice for the poor is on almost every page. Yet which gets more pulpit time in conservative American churches?

Will one of you explain the meaning of Jesus' dividing those few fishes and the loaves to feed a multitude? Somehow I think it means a heck of a lot more than most people seem to think. But I want to know more about the story. Somebody tell me about it. Is there some significance in the number of fishes and loaves? I've heard that numbers themselves often mean more than a quantity in scripture.

PS -- it's just a gut feeling I have that tells me there's a place for this story in this thread.

Michael,

Liberals say we have a budget deficit because taxes are too low. Conservatives say we have a deficit because the government spends too much.

The government has not learned to live within its means, like all of us must do, if we are to avoid bankruptcy. Of course, the government's ability to print money makes it possible to delay the day of reckoning, but I expect it will come eventually.

Meanwhile the tax too little, spend too much argument goes on, but the debt continues to rise.

Gary,

Some very good observations. I would like to add that unless we go back to an entreprenurial capitalist model then I think we are going to see a new feudalism emerge. You are so right about the debt mounting and its not just government debt but personal indebtness as well. Are you a Libertarian by any chance?

Gary,

Since you worship "The Marketplace" and have mentioned it several times in previous posts, perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining the morality behind a practice (The Marketplace) which actually ENCOURAGES people to be shrewd, take advantage of other people for monetary gain, and basically put the accumulation of money and stockholder interests above things like decency and the plight of the poor. Also please explain to me just how you reason that Jesus would approve of all of this wheeling and dealing in the name of "Good Business", and how this reverence for The Marketplace ties in with Christianity. Also, while you jumped all over Arden for his reference to The Book of Amos, you never have explained how you are able to dismiss all of the passages regarding usury in the Old Testament, New Testament, and The Gospel of Thomas. Doesn't ignoring (like) THIRTEEN injunctions against usury "suit your purposes" in defending your glorious Free Market System? I mean, if The Bible is infallible, all of those references to usury, as well as categorizing greed as sinful in BOTH the Old and New Testaments, SHOULD be taken as more than a grain of salt by you (one would imagine). I am serious, I really want to hear your take on this, as how your mind works is a total mystery to me.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

Frank,

I don't think I would qualify as a Libertarian because I disagree with them on some social/moral issues.

Damien,

I dispute your charge that I worship the marketplace. I just think it is the best system we have.

I believe in people, as opposed to government, determining the price of goods and services, by their transactions in the marketplace. I believe in just weights and measures. I believe in honesty. I believe that promises made should be kept.

Because some people will be dishonest, we have laws against theft, fraud and other evils in the marketplace.

Do you define usury as making a profit on money lent, or making too large a profit on it?

Gary,

I personally define usury as making too great a profit on it (which is what the majority of banks, money-lenders, mortgage companies, etc. are currently doing in the United States, burdening tens of millions and driving us that much faster toward the status of a Third World Country), as I'm sure you do, HOWEVER The Bible injunctions seem to suggest that ANY interest charged is either unlawful or sinful (and is in fact why Muslims will not, as a rule, permit it). Now, while you may live in some idyllic dreamland in which all of these "honest" people are using "just weights and measures", the fact is "The Marketplace" DOES encourage people to "wheel and deal", to take advantage of others, to make their primary interest one of profit and stockholder gains, and to put the interests of the wealthy over the interests of the poor. That is not debatable, that is a fact. My question to you is how do you reason that Jesus would approve of this, and how can it be reconciled with The Gospels?

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

Damien,

How do you know how much profit is too much?

Does the Bible prohibit profit? If yes, then why? If not, why do you think the Bible prohibits profit on money loaned, but not on other transactions?

Gary,

I try to be fair with you and answer your questions, as I have in previous posts, but you invariably simply ignore the questions I put to you that you find "uncomfortable". Try answering a few I've put to you in the above posts and I'll answer your last post, and don't give me the "I believe" stuff please.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

I guess what I want to know is did Jesus perform the miracle of dividing the fishes and loaves to feed the two thousand just because he wanted to feed them or was there some greater symbol in the miracle. I mean, he didn't just perform miracles at a whim, did he? I don't think so. I think it means something, but what? You know, he could've just as easily made fishes and loaves rain down from heaven for all we know. But he didn't. He gathered the fishes and loaves from the multitude and divided them to feed all. That just smacks of symbolism to me. And doesn't this have some place in this discussion about assuring a decent working wage? I think that it does.

Gary the troll; the free market system will never work when an organization gets so big that it can get it supplies at the price it wants to pay and can sell them at a price it wants to; and pay politicians to let cheap labor flow so you can’t negotiate your wages and have to take what they offer. That is a controlled Market place. And it is controlled by the rich and they control the Republican Party.

Damien,

Usury is mentioned in the New Testament only twice, Matt. 25:27 and Luke 19:23, and neither time is condemned.

In Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37, and Deut. 23:19, the Jews are instructed not to lend money to poor Jews with usury. But Deut. 23:20 says they can lend to a stranger with usury.

I would agree with you that wanting too much interest on money loaned is bad, but I'm not sure either of us could say with certainty how much is too much.

I have had credit cards that charged me interest that I thought was too high. I have replaced those with ones whose interest I am willing to pay. If we live within our means, we can borrow money at reasonable rates. Foolish spending sometimes gets a person in a position where they have few options, but it usually is their own fault and they have to work their way out of it.

I don't think those scriptures on usury teach that there is anything wrong with lending money at interest, as long as the terms are understood before the loan is given. I don't think the Bible teaches that profit is wrong, even profit on loans. A case might be made about not charging interest on loans to fellow Christians, but I don't think it applies to others.

A business transaction requires a buyer and a seller. If both agree to the deal, I don't see a problem.

Voluntary transactions in a marketplace is the best economic situation we can hope for in this sinful world. We need laws to remedy theft, fraud, etc., but we do not need the government to set prices for things we buy and sell.

Well, in all of the Old Testament scriptures referring to usury, it is flat-out condemned as either unlawful or sinful. The one scripture in Deuteronomy does indeed suggest that at the very least Christian bankers who practice usury on other Christians are committing a sin (because that ONE piece of scipture in all the others allows for usury practiced on a "stranger", but NOT one's brother). Jesus most certainly does address usury in a most profound way when he attacks the moneylenders and moneychangers in the temple. He calls them "a den of thieves" suggesting that they are doing more than just "kindly" lending money, and are in fact practicing usury in some form. In any event, as I say, the majority of those scriptures suggest that ANY charging of interest is wrong. As I pointed out, Muslims come from the same traditions and "laws" that Jews came from, and that is why in Islam there are strict prohibitions against usury. As you say (and rightly, I agree) it is difficult to determine just what is "fair", but the problem is this: when you allow your "Free Market" system to determine that, to allow cold economics and shareholder interests to become the primary determining factor, and not take into consideration the plight of so many who are falling below the poverty level (aided often by the banks/moneylenders and their greed), this goes beyond just being callous, it is sinful. As Jesus said about profit (since you asked), "What does it gain a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his soul". Certainly Jesus was no fan of greed and wealth-hoarding. He stated in Matthew (6:19-20) that we are not to store up earthly wealth, but rather seek to store up our treasure in Heaven, and He tells us how to do this in Matthew 25:32-46, and also in The Beatitudes. He states outright that it is difficult (not impossible, granted, but difficult) for a rich man to enter Heaven, and of the rich He says, "Woe to the rich, for they have their reward". If one can't see from these passages that Jesus condemns greed and lust for earthly wealth, quite simply they're without hope. Truly they have no eyes to see, and no ears to hear.

Again I would ask...how do you think Jesus would feel about this concept of "good business" and "good capitalism" while so many are struggling to survive, more and more falling below the poverty level, while the richest get richer still? WHAT WOULD JESUS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS? According to The Gospels, quite a bit I daresay.

Gary, I've got a little story to tell you which you may not even be aware of, but which illustrates the repugnant nature of our money-driven system, and how far back it stretches.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the The Civil War to, among other things, insure the civil liberties of newly freed African Americans. It also dealt with issues of citizenship, but in part protected the rights of life, liberty, the right to own property, etc. Now before this Corporations in the U.S. had been under very strict guidelines, timeframes, etc. For instance, they were not allowed to own other corporations (thus creating conglomerates, as they would come to be known). What the corporate lawyers did after the 14th Amendment was approved (yes, there were corporate lawyers even back then) was to petition the U.S. Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment, claiming that a corporation was, in fact, a type of person....and....the court agreed with them. Of the over 300 cases brought before the Supreme Court in the next several years concerning 14th Amendment rights, about 280 some were on behalf of corporations. After that, corporations began to "evolve" (Satan's version of evolution this time), and eventually came to be the greedy, political wheeling and dealing vampires they are today. And now the richest 5% of Americans control about 60% of the wealth, roughly 50 million people are going without basic necessities, 46 million can't afford health coverage...well, I've gone over this with you before. If you think Jesus would approve in any way, shape, or form with what is going on in your wonderful "Marketplace", then I don't know what to tell you. I really just don't, except to remind you that Jesus said one cannot worship two Gods...one cannot worship both God and Mammon. And one cannot be a true disciple of Jesus of Nazareth and attempt to justify greed. Greed, contrary to what Wall Street might say, is definitely not "good".

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Gary, there is a flaw in your argument, and what happened during the hurricanes here in Florida points that flaw out.

Free drinking water was being distributed at a site here in central Florida. A local businessman went to that site and gathered up a whole bunch of the water, took it back to his store, and sold it for several times what bottled water would normally sell for. That reduced the amount of drinking water available from the distribution center, and since many of his customers were poor and unable to travel any distance (such as to get water), he was gouging them unmercifully (since the local water system was down).

HE CONTROLLED the price, there was no negotiation.

Try negotiating the price the next time you go to a store. If you're not laughed at or thrown out, you will be lucky.

Anyway, he ended up being dragged into court, and was found guilty of price gouging during a disaster.

Some people also purchased a bunch of generators up north and brought them to Florida, trying to sell them for several times what they paid. They were caught, forced to sell the generators at cost, and then thrown out of the state.

There were MANY cases like this taking place. Business owners don't give a damn about the people they sell to- the people are only PROFIT to them.

They won't admit it, however. If you want to know what business people REALLY think like- go to the website "working America" http://www.workingamerica.org/home.cfm .

The bosses there are the norm, not the exception.

Bob,

We live in a nation where decency has taken a backseat to profit. People are no longer told that greed is an evil thing, but rather their love of money is both patriotic and even "righteous". Good Capitalism=Good Christianity and Good American. Is it really surprising then to see the level of greed and selfishness we are seeing today when the current administration has handed out money to the rich and to corporations at every opportunity, has indulged in no-bid contracts to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and is backed up in all of this scandal and avarice by a quasi-"christian" base of supporters who have adopted the Puritans' old belief of "The richer you are, the more God loves you"? We see Americans feeding on and taking advantage of other Americans all around us. Everywhere! Banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, utilities, gas companies...even the city, state, and federal government burden and steal from their citizens. It is in this atmosphere of unbridled greed on the part of the wealthy, and mounting despair on the part of the working class and the poor, that Satan has sown the seeds once again of nationalism, intolerance, pseudo-christianity, and polarization. The number of "bad bosses" is on the rise and will continue thusly, as more and more conservative-minded capitalists seek to get ahead at any cost, to wheel and deal and "win" the big prize, encouraged by both the political arena and the pulpit telling them that "good business" justifies everything. And The Devil laughs and laughs in Hell...and waits for all of these "good capitalists" to receive his very warm welcome when they die.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien

Damien,

Jesus does not condemn voluntry economic transactions for profit, if what is being sold is moral.

If you don't like corporations, why don't you seek to make them illegal?

Do you have an alternative to the marketplace?

For Garry and you people arguing about usury
1 Timothy 6 These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Gary... I think you either missed or ignored my point... which is that many of those "volunatary" contributions are NOT.

The rich and powerful set the price. They don't care who they hurt in their quest for more profit.

There is NO negotiation over price.

Bob,

In my experience, being forced to buy something at a fixed price is rare. There is almost always an alternative.

I think there is an interestin paradox in any discussion of the worth of capitalism. We can not truly know the experience of anyone else, only ourselves. To speak of someone else's experience is dangerously presumptuous and threatens to erode the true needs of others through our incomplete understanding.

However, we are hardly able to speak about those that capitalism leaves behind, or how capitalism has served those on the bottom of the economic scale. We all have the money to enable us to sit at computers, on the internet no less, and share our ideas. We have the money to have the leisure to read and inform ourselves about current issues and theology. But not everyone has those privledges. Those are the people who don't have the alternatives and choices that we often attribute to capitalism. And they're the ones who can't put their voices out on this blog.

Since no one has taken a swat at the symbol of the fishes and loaves, I'll take a swat myself.

When Jesus and the disciples arrived on the mount, they were hungry, and Jesus told the disciples to go among the crowd and gather what food there was. The disciples returned with a few fish and loaves of bread, and that's when Jesus miraculously caused the fishes and loaves to multiply with the intent of dividing them amongst the crowd. Conceivably, Jesus and the disciples could just have eaten the collected fish and bread themselves, but Jesus expressly did the opposite. He took the collected resources of the crowd with the purpose of redistributing them. Presumably, the people from whom the fishes and loaves came gave the volunteered them, again with the intent that they'd be redistributed and, hence, helped create the miracle that followed.

I think what Jesus gave us with this miracle was a model for a conscientious economy. You might even say a Christian economy.

Gary,

The product AND the transaction itself must by moral. When people are being "shrewd" and seeking to take advantage of others, to steal and deceive and cheat all in the name of bigger profits, of stockholder shares, and of "staying competitive in the world market", that is IMMORAL. That is an abomination and a sin, and that is what is going on all over this country. Jesus does not condemn transactions, certainly, HOWEVER He DOES rail against the rich repeatedly, and against "covetousness" (hoarding wealth), and seeking to store up earthly wealth instead of pursuing the treasures of Heaven.

As for the corporations, I despise them, and would love to see them ripped apart and scattered to the winds. That is unlikely to happen however. I work politically to frustrate and defeat them as best I may, as do millions of others in this country. Would I make them "illegal" if I could? No, but I would wish that the privileges granted them under the Fourteenth Amendment were totally revoked, as the Fourteenth Amendment was installed to protect the rights of PEOPLE, and not to help corporations to easier fill their pockets. I would also totally abolish corporate welfare (that's TOTALLY), as many others would. If a corporation can't make it legitimately without taxpayer handouts, let them sink.

Finally, what would I replace the current "marketplace" with? Perhaps a "kinder, gentler marketplace", where corporations, banks, merchants, utilities, insurers, etc. were forced to consider the good of their neighbors ABOVE profit and shareholder interests, and where greed and "shrewdness" is made illegal and punishable. I know, a pipedream, but you asked.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

It is a "pipe dream" shared by many, Brother.

We all work for profit- but when it hurts another, it becomes evil. Part of the problem is that those in power have become insulated from the effects of their decisions, so they don't feel it when they cut people's wages- or outsource people's jobs so they can cut wages.

Michael the Leveller, Monte, et. al.

Interesting discussion and some good points made on different sides.

HOWEVER, the discussion gets underway based on a flawed, but conveniently perpetuated and frequently demagogued premise, namely that
"tax cuts for the rich" are bad, immoral, unfair to the poor,

and that they add to the national debt, reduce government tax revenues, less available for government programs, etc.

WRONG!

Both with Walter Heller advising John F. Kennedy in the l960's, with Ronald Reagan (following the disastrous record high interest rates and high inflation Carter administration), and most recently with George W. Bush inheriting an economy sliding down at the end of the Clinton administration, reductions in individual marginal tax rates (i.e. "tax cuts for the rich") resulted in

INCREASED government tax revenues, and accordingly, the deficit has been shrinking more rapidly than the Paul Krugmanlike "experts" ever allow as possible in their hopelessly doctrinaire liberalism.

So whatever the commentary about public policy, save all the questions and moralizing until basic reality is clarified first.

Also, remember that the top 2% of income earners (i.e. the "rich" pay HALF of the entire Federal tax revenues) the remaining 50% is paid by the other 98% (30-40% don't pay any, nor should they)

Now, I suppose 2% of taxpayers paying HALF of all the taxes is not "paying their fair share?" Hardly.

Try checking through the endless demagoguery and start the discussion with reality. (usually conveniently ignored or distorted for agenda purposes.)

And Monte, if capitalism and corporations are awful and evil (yes there have been and still can be problems and excesses) ask yourself the following questions:

1. How many breakthrough medical cures, vaccinations, or other major inventions/discoveries that have reduced human pain and suffering on a wide scale,

have come from North Korea or Cuba?

2. Where do the jobs that pay workers, minimum wage or otherwise, come from? What happens to job availability if the costs of labor and benefits, excessive regulation and litigation costs become ridiculously burdensome?

3. regarding the world's richest capitalist, Bill Gates, how many millions of people have been forced at gunpoint to buy his products?