“My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.”- Margaret Thatcher (25 Oct 1925 - 8 April 2013), The News of the World, 20 September 1981.
"It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is 'a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.'"
How does God view economics? First, money is never an end in itself. At the same time, money is never the root of all evil; it is never a sin to be rich. James reminds the wealthy, that it is their unirghteousness and shortsightedness that is the cause of their ruin. Lord, help us to be biblical with our money. As much as current trends in society may argue, social justice does not entail a mitigated or tacit socialism and communism. Instead, teach us to be righteous, kind and compassionate to others with the wealth You give us.
Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of the armies. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.
- James 5:4ff
“'The President's Proposal,’ as the 11-page White House document is headlined, is in one sense a notable achievement: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them—but by expanding them to everyone.”
- “ObamaCare at Ramming Speed: The White House Shows It Has No Interest In Compromise,” from The Wall Street Journal Online, February 23, 2010 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081391789004352.html
"You guys have it real easy. I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country -Rushmore. Now for some of you it doesn't matter: You were born rich, and you're going to stay rich. But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the cross hairs and take them down. Just remember: they can buy anything, but they can't buy backbone -don't let them forget that. Thank you."
"For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care, and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or retirement."- Martin Feldstien, "Obama's Plan Isn't the Answer," in The Washington Post July 28, 2009 [on-line]. Available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701905.html
"Among the clergy, there was a gravely flawed view of justice and the role of the gospel -that is to say, of how the gospel was to be applied to social circumstances. Clergymen generally regarded any inequality in wealth as inherently suspect and even as evidence of exploitation and injustice. Lacking understanding of how economies grow and distribute wealth, they believed that only a central authority could 'apportion resources' with an eye to helping the poor, the aged, and the underprivileged. Lacking business experience, they could not conceive of the contribution that entrepreneurs and businessmen made to the growth of an economy. They thought only of dividing wealth more fairly, not of generating more wealth."- Father Robert. A Sirico, "Economics on the Left: From Marxism to Keynesianism," in The Age of the Economists From Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, 31-42 (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, 1999).
"It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength of skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in the land, the land, in such case, is only his ages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consists of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interest of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy [socialists] propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
"It's important to remember that John Locke is a cradle Calvinist. He learned basic Calvinistic theory as part of his basic upbringing. He spent time in the Netherlands, a haven of Calvinism among other faiths. And he spent time in coffee houses learning about what toleration means, about what social contract means, about what natural rights mean, about what the rights of nature entail. And I dare say that a number of his basic [political] ideas are simply genetic reflexes or in of his Puritan heritage part of those ingenious repositioning of those Calvinistic ideas so that they would become palatable to an Anglican and Royalist community."
"I use throughout the term 'liberal' in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country [Britain], helped by muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that 'liberal' has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of governmental control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservative... But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary of society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A Conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be the defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms for others."- Friedrich August Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents, The Definitive Edition, ed. Bruce Caldwell (London: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
