Star Parker wrote this and as on old school liberal who opposes the liberal welfare-state ( I believe in the Christian-Democrat welfare state with personal ownership and responsibility), I agree.

September 9, 2013

An important new book addresses the question of global poverty, but does so by provoking the reader to also consider our own nation and demand that we better understand ourselves and the wellsprings of our own success.

Two evangelical Christians teamed up to write "Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution." One is Barry Asmus, senior economist at the National Center for Policy Analysis. The other is Wayne Grudem, research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary.

What accounts for the astounding success of our nation, the world's most prosperous but also, at just 227 years old, one of the world's youngest?

The mystery of the nature and sources of wealth and poverty is far from new, and Asmus and Grudem survey the vast literature dealing with this most basic question. They also review the long experience of attempts by governments to design policies to alleviate and eradicate poverty in their own country and in others.

In the end, the picture that emerges appears quite clear. Over thousands of years of human experience -- going through economic arrangements such as tribalism, s***ery, feudalism, mercantilism, socialism and c*******m and welfare statism -- no arrangement can compare in creating new value, production of goods and services, and prosperity, like the free market.

However, despite the success of free market economies, they are regularly subject to political challenge because of the ongoing human desire to understand the "ghost in the machine," so to speak, and control it and its outcomes. How does it work? How does this prosperity happen when no one seems to be in charge?

The authors help the lay reader understand key aspects of free markets that make them work so well: ownership and private property, the vital information conveyed by prices in the marketplace and profits and losses of business, specialization and competition, and creativity and entrepreneurship.

But they add a key addition to the equation, often forgotten, ignored or dismissed in discussions about free market economies.

That is the importance of individual virtue.

The book is filled with biblical citations showing that biblical principles and virtue are not just compatible with free markets, but vital to their functioning.

With all the abstract discussions about public policy, with our great ambition to develop "systems," we tend to forget, incredibly, that the core component of human systems is individual, unique human beings -- each a unique universe unto himself or herself.

We should wonder how we have so many discussions about freedom and so few about individual free choice and personal responsibility and the existence of good and evil that make individual responsibility and choice so important.

This important book reminds us of the inseparability of economic freedom and individual virtue and responsibility.

The American civil rights movement was inspired and animated by images of the Bible -- the Israelites ens***ed in Egypt, their leader demanding "Let my people go." But the movement made a grave error in overlooking that the reason for seeking liberation from Egypt was so Israelites could go and receive the law and live according to it, freely, in their own land.

Freedom is more than removal of external barriers of oppression and limitation. It demands that individuals personally adopt principles of t***h and virtue so that they may govern their own lives and live successfully with others.

The loss of this perspective has cost b***k A******ns economic progress.

Now our whole nation flounders as more Americans of all backgrounds turn to government and political power for answers rather than freedom and personal virtue and responsibility.

Free markets, individual virtue fuel prosperity

CURE's National Advisory Board
Images of Star Parker

What we do

CURE is a non-profit think tank that addresses issues of race and poverty through principles of faith, freedom and personal responsibility. Our objective is to build awareness that the conservative agenda of traditional values, limited government, and private ownership is of greatest marginal benefit to low income peoples. We explore and promote market based public policies to fight poverty within the political process to protect ones' purposes and pursuits - not to plunder them. Our agenda protects unborn life, traditional mores, capitalism, parental rights and private property. Learn more about CURE.
About Star Parker

Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE. She is a syndicated columnist whose opinion is published in over 400 newspapers each week. Additionally, she gives regular testimony before the United States Congress, and often shares her views on major television and radio shows across the country. Learn more about Star Parker.

Copyright © 2013 CURE. All Rights Reserved. For reprints, contact us.

Email: Contact Us
Phone: 202-479-2873 (CURE)

Center for Urban Renewal and Education
1317 F Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004

Part of the problem is that big government has no way of telling which people have troubles that prevent them from working from those who are just gaming the system and not looking to find a job. Disability, unemployment and food stamps should be administered by the States and more welfare benefits should go to those who show up regularly at job fairs or make an attempt to better their life through job training programs. People who have been on welfare for more than say 12 months should be made to justify their inability to find a job that pays minimum wage and minimum wage should be somewhere above poverty level. State provided child care should be made available for those who need it where child expenses exceed a certain amount based upon the number of children and the income made available by the provision of child care.
Federal programs that make work more attractive such as the make work pay credit should be limited to those who hold jobs for at least 1000 hours over the taxable year. Exceptions can be made for employees who can show that they can't meet the 1000 hours requirement because their jobs are seasonal. In that case all or part of the benefits must be allocated to improving their job sk**ls to get a job in the non-seasonal period.
Something also must be done to reduce the number of children born to a parent or parents who are on medicaid such as declaring a second or third child a ward of the State unless the mother or couple can show the ability to pay for care of that child with minimal additional assistance. I read that 48 percent of births in 2010 were to a mother or parents who were on medicaid.

It is because a reduction in taxes paid is called a "tax credit" and never a tax deduction. A deduction always reduces the amount of taxable income whether it is called a tax deduction or is just called a deduction. To avoid confusion though, it is better to never use the term "tax deduction" to avoid confusing people.

I didn't major in economics so I don't completely understand it either. A little bit of overspending to set up a new business may well be justified, just as a deficit budget to create growth in the economy might be; but, our current debt seems out of control and growth could probably be better obtained by creating a more predictable and favorable economic outlook. I read that taxes were used for a limited time to help pay for the Civil War and that taxes on the rich (over 200,000 AGI) were at 94% during a period of World War II. It would seem that a better balance between taxes and regulation would help spur growth, i.e., less regulation and paperwork in return for slightly higher taxes on business to help pay for the last two wars and the bank bailout. The poor spend their money and a better educated working class that spends wisely is good for business. If I remember correctly, the last time the US had a budget surplus was during the last 4 years of the Clinton era.

I am an old school liberal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Now days, liberalism is a term associated for a range of social viewpoints from the welfare state in the US to the Laissez-faire economics common in Europe See http://en.wikipedia.org/Laissez-faire. I oppose the liberal welfare state of the US and favor the Christian-democrat welfare-state such as provided by Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Italy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Welfare-state

Liberalism is not C*******m because
1)Wikipedia defines 'c*******m' as follows: "C*******m comes from the Latin word communis, which means 'shared' or 'belong to all'.[7][8]." In contrast in America under a liberal view, Americans have ownership of their property, it is not "shared" or "belong to all"
2) According to Wikipedia, "c*******m is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity." In America under a liberal viewpoint the country would still be governed by law and scarcity would be much the result of an individuals poor choices in life.
3)According to Wikipedia, a "c*******t society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions." In America under a liberal viewpoint, there would still be States and the US Constitution.
4)"In modern usage, the word 'c*******m' is still often used to refer to the policies of self-declared socialist governments comprising one-party states which were single legal political party systems operating under centrally planned economies and a state ownership of the means of production, with the state, in turn, claiming that it represented the interests of the working classes." Under the liberal viewpoint, American government would still be under a multi-party system and ownership of the means of production would still be under private ownership.
5)"[Most c*******ts] claimed to base their ideology on Marxism-Leninism (though this, too, may be erroneous), but they [do] not call the system they [plan] "c*******m", nor [do] they even necessarily claim at all times that the ideology was the sole driving force behind their policies" The liberals I know believe in the American system of government and based their viewpoints squarely on the Bible.

Wikipedia defines "c*******m" as follows: C*******m comes from the Latin word communis, which means "shared" or "belong to all".[7][8]
In the schema of historical materialism and its subcategory dialectical materialism (the application of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics to historical materialism), c*******m is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity. A c*******t society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and c*******m, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism to collective ownership.[9]
The hammer and sickle and the red star are universal symbols of c*******m.
In modern usage, the word "c*******m" is still often used to refer to the policies of self-declared socialist governments comprising one-party states which were single legal political party systems operating under centrally planned economies and a state ownership of the means of production, with the state, in turn, claiming that it represented the interests of the working classes. A significant sector of the modern c*******t movement alleges that these states never made an attempt to t***sition to a c*******t society, while others even argue that they never achieved a legitimate socialism. Most of these governments claimed to base their ideology on Marxism-Leninism (though this, too, may be erroneous), but they did not call the system they had set up "c*******m", nor did they even necessarily claim at all times that the ideology was the sole driving force behind their policies: Mao Zedong, for example, pursued New Democracy, and Vladimir Lenin in the early 1920s enacted war c*******m; later, the Vietnamese enacted doi moi, and the Chinese switched to socialism with Chinese characteristics. The governments labeled by other governments as "c*******t" generally claimed that they had set up a t***sitional socialist system. This system is sometimes referred to as state socialism or by other similar names.
"Higher-phase c*******m" is a term sometimes used to refer to the stage in history after socialism (or lower-phase c*******m), although just as many c*******ts use simply the term "c*******m" to refer to that stage. The classless, stateless society that characterises this c*******m is one in which decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made by a free association of equal individuals. In such a higher-phase c*******m the interests of every member of society is given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life

In contrast, the Democratic party stands for the totally different concepts of "Reclaiming the economic security of the middle class is the challenge we must overcome today. That begins by
restoring the basic values that made our country great, and restoring for everyone who works hard and plays by the rules the opportunity to find a job that pays the bills, turn an idea into a profitable business, care for your family, afford a home you call your own and health care you can count on, retire with dignity and respect, and, most of all, give your children the kind of education that allows them to dream even bigger and go even further than you ever imagined" which is clearly not a c*******tic or socialist view. See http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Calling a liberal Democrat a C*******t is no better than calling a Tea party member a r****t. Only a minute portion of either group is so extreme.

During World War II taxes on the rich class were raised to 94%, during the Iraq war, Bush actually cut the tax rate.

The US government operated at a surplus in each of the last six years of the Clinton era. Republicans and Democrats share the credit for that in my view.

I am a liberal Democrat, but I don't see that fiscal conservatives should automatically associated with the Koch brothers and their agenda any more than that a liberal Democrat should automatically be associated with l*****ts.

As I said above a two thirds majority of states can call a convention to proposed constitutional amendments. It still takes 3/4 of state legislatures to approve the amendments. But it would be a major political statement to Congress to get its act together if 2/3 of the States met and passed amendments to the Constitution. Who knows, maybe by then 3/4 of the States would be willing to approve the thing as a last resort if Congress remains broken.

Actually, there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution. In Article V of the Constitution, the Founders developed a second method to propose amendments.
The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is the Article V provision that gives the
states the ability to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. See http://www.conventionofstates.com/sites/default/files/ConventionOfStates_Handbook_0.pdf

A two thirds majority of States (34) is all it takes for a Convention of States to meet and amend the Constitution to make more clear that certain powers belong in the hands of the States. If Obamacare proves the be an undue burden on States, a couple of "Blue States" might join with the "Red States" to overturn the law. In that case, a civil war would be unnecessary.

I think you mean Bill Clinton and the answer is apparently that the US intelligence agency had "credible indications" of a mass weapons program in Irag. Bottom line it appears the the US was misled by the intelligence community.