"Where Your Treasure Is": The Economy and Values

Bush is asking Congress for authority to purchase up to $700 billion in bad mortgages. This does not mean the program will cost $700 billion. Bad mortgages are still secured by homes, and the homes have value. Either the government collects on the mortgage, or forecloses and sells the home. The true cost to taxpayers will be the $$ amount of bad loans bought by the Treasury minus whatever can be recouped on the loan...that could be 30%, 50%, or 70% or 100%. This is how banks get back at least some of th emoney they lent.

As a footnote, the $85 billion for AIG is not a gift, its a loan with 11% interest and a term of 2 years. The media has been repeating over and over that the government "bought out" AIG; you never hear that the govenrment is lending AIG the money. Say what you want about the likelihood of the loan being repaid, but a loan is a loan. Likewise, if AIG defaults the government like any creditor can sell of AIG in whole or part, offsetting the original $85 billion loan.

I think the issue is way past Mr. Bush wanting to line his friends' pockets; it is a situation threatening to bankrupt many many financial institutions; and that could cost the US way more in terms of job loss and possibly years of recession.

Its interesting that you attribute all the greed and bad behavior only to Republicans. Certainly God knows better since he sees all of our greed. I would say we are all to blame because of our natural tendency toward human greed.

Let's look at the transaction, multiplied a million times over, that is at the heart of this crash: the mortgage. Greed starts right at the beginning when a homebuyer wants the nicest possible house they can possibly afford; whether they can make the payments past the first year or not; since banks used to ensure this but not in recent years as standards became looser. The agent wants the commission, the mortgage broker wants the loan commission, the bank wants the origination fee, the securities firm wants the loan to package with other loans to sell to investors, Fannie and Freddie want to do more of this so shareholders and executives benefit, and neither Congress or the federal government wanted to disrupt this happy economic scenario.

Perhaps it would have helped if Fannie and Freddie and whatever federal agency is responsible had not encouraged this flow to increase through loosening lending standards. But that is why we are supposed to have Congressional oversight. There are several committees in Congress, with professional staff, who could have reviewed this whole scenario.

You imply that if a person advocates spending more government money on the poor, or for health care for everyone, they are more like Jesus as described in scripture. You say Republicans "put away their Bibles" when it comes to funding new government programs. Jesus called upon us as individuals to love and give; I am not sure where in scripture it is advocated to take money from wealthy people and give it to the poor. And I am sure many conservatives believe Democrats "put away their Bibles" when it comes to saving the unborn.

Noodle,
A few quick comments in reply. True that we don’t know exactly what the final price-tag will be for this bailout. It could be more or less than $700B. But we need to keep in mind that the market wouldn’t touch these products the government is taking over, despite their supposedly being undervalued. So we have to expect to take a huge hit on these bailouts or the market would be taking the risk.

The way one figures government spending is to look at what things cost...not their return. Otherwise, education spending and preventative medicine for children would have no cost. Republicans always talk about the cost now when arguing for cutting those programs, not what we can expect to get in return. So we should apply the same standards to this case…especially, since there is every chance that the price tag could be even greater than the $700 billion.

Greed is definitely not limited to Republican leaders. It’s just that this administration has taken greed and abuse of power to new heights and seems to have completely thrown out the idea of government leaders as stewards and instead has used their power to enrich their friends and launch wars they have always dreamed of…I guess, to be fair, one can never truly know another’s heart or motivations...but if it is true that they can be known by their fruits, then my critique stands on pretty firm ground.

It is your final paragraph though that I feel needs the most attention. As I said in a previous post, anyone truly interested in saving the unborn would be voting Dem since Democrats are the only party that has actually done anything about the problem. As with government spending, abortions decreased more under Clinton than any of the “pro-Life” Republican administrations, and Democrats in Congress are the ones pushing legislation that will significantly reduce abortions.

It’s interesting you’d ask where in scripture it says government should take money from the rich to give to the poor…it actually does say that (see below), but that is not why I think we should support children’s healthcare or school lunches or food stamps. The Bible definitely never says that the government should prevent gay marriage or stop abortions or prevent people in Africa from using condoms. When Republicans argue for those positions, they do so b/c of their Christian values that they draw from teachings in scripture. Every government action is a values decision, and although I may disagree with some of their Biblical interpretations on certain points, I would not question their ability to legislate based on their values. But if they are going to claim Christian values on those issue, it is hypocritical not to do so on the others. We’re not Christians only in the bedroom.

There are only two times in the Bible when Jesus talks about the specifics of why and on what we will be judged: Lazarus and the Rich Man and The Sheep and the Goats. Jesus makes it quite clear that he will judge based on how those with much (power, money, time, etc) treat those with little. And check out the policies implied by Isaiah’s vision of what God’s kingdom would look like in Is 65. So if we’re going to talk at all about using Christian values in government (and the Republicans are intent on doing so), it seems to me that the government programs that help the least of these should be pretty high on the list of priorities…after all, the American programs we are talking about carry a much lower standard than what the Bible says elsewhere (fist from the Law and then Jeremiah speaking to the king):

“Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants…in this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property…the land must not be sold permanently because the land is mine and you are but aliens and tenants…if one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells property…what he sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and he can then go back to his property”

"Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. 16He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the Lord. 17"But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain, on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion"

Since it is the highest income earners who have benefited the most from the fruits of a strong government that creates order, protects their wealth, creates the infrastructure wealth is built upon and educates the workforce that makes it possible, it is logical that the rich would pay the most. After all, from those to whom much is given…

But you are definitely correct that government cannot bring about the kingdom. That is up to God and the Church, and all government can do is stem the damage of the fallen world in the meantime.

My point is simply that it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous that the values language and citations of scripture dry up on the Republican side each time we talk about the issue that Jesus and the prophets spent so much of their time and attention on. All I’m asking for is consistency if politicians are going to play the faith and values card.

If a Party is going to claim to be pro-Life, why does it stop caring about those lives as soon as a child is out of the womb? If Bush’s favorite philosopher really is Jesus, then why has Bush done so little help those whom Jesus talked about more than any other topic save the kingdom?

I’m not making claims of righteousness on the Democratic side but simply calling the other side to live up to their rhetoric. It was the Moral Majority and Republicans (especially our current president) who claimed the mantel of faith. I just think it is important to make sure that if Republicans are going to don that mantel when they need to score a few political points that they aren't allowed to set it aside whenever it starts to get uncomfortable.