Skip to main content

Donald Trump & Andrew Yang

In light of recent Internet memes, let's be perfectly clear about a few things here.

1) President Trump's proposal to send checks to citizens impacted by COVID-19 is not, I repeat, is not the same thing proposed by Andrew Yang during his failed attempted to nab the Democratic nomination.  It is intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.  Trump, along with numerous other legislators, is recommending a bailout of the American people as a temporary response to a crisis.  Yang was suggesting that we should permanently provide $1000/month to an entire class of poverty-stricken Americans.  The concepts are entirely different, as would be the fiscal ramifications.  Moreover, Trump's stimulus package is an attempt to correct problems caused not only by the current pandemic, but by the restrictions put in place as a response to that pandemic.  It's an attempt to counteract the financial hardship caused by government actions--a "sorry, here's some money" sort of thing.  Yang's proposal sought to ease the woes of lower class Americans continuously, enabling them to afford the necessities of life, but would inevitably create a class of government dependents and legitimize a life of sloth.

2) It's still a bad idea.  A stimulus would have positive short-term effects, but we would pay for that immediate boost ten-fold down the road.  If we learned anything from Obama's stimulus package, or other similar attempts throughout history, it's that pumping money into the economy devalues your currency, and that leads to way more problems than a temporary economic downturn.  Generally speaking, when the Federal government attempts to rescue a nation from economic crisis, that crisis is worsened and elongated.  An economy, especially one as robust as ours, will self-correct.  You simply have to think long-term and get through current difficulties without sacrificing tomorrow for today.

3) It's still Socialism.  Call it what you will--a bailout, a stimulus, pandemic relief--it's still Socialism.  The political and economic ideas that undergird this proposal--that the Federal government should manipulate the economy, that Uncle Sam should rescue us from crises, that government bureaucracies are the answers to the troubles of the world--are all Socialistic.  Crises reveal character, both morally and politically.  We know who we really are when our backs are against the wall, and COVID-19 has demonstrably shown that our nation has largely imbibed the spirit of Socialism.  With each crisis, whether financial, medical, or sociopolitical, we inch ever closer to embracing our true identity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...