tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-311685892011-07-07T21:29:42.163-07:00Living In The End TimesObservations from the intersection of Faith & politics, while keeping an eye out for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus ChristRoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391395036960385203noreply@blogger.comBlogger11100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31168589.post-56913634989088396382009-11-06T18:09:00.000-08:002009-11-06T18:09:24.720-08:00What's the difference between Democrats & Republicans?Speaking as someone who has been in both camps at one time or another, the most obvious thing that comes to mind is that many Republican's god (with a small g) is money. That<i> is</i> idolatry, to be sure, but I think it's slightly less offensive to God (the almighty - big G) than the strange deity Democrats worship, with their rush to embrace depravity of all kinds. We do well to bear in mind that both parties are filled with sinners, since none of us are capable of keeping God's perfect moral code. <br />The deeper thing I wanted to discuss was that the parties, to me, seem to have become divided on a philosophical level by their understanding of human sinfulness. (I don't claim this to be an original thought, I believe I first heard it put forth by Andy Rooney). The Democrats think people are basically good. That means if someone is having a problem, send them a check which will enable them to fix it (pay their rent, buy their food, send them to school, etc.) This approach might work, if not for inherent human wickedness. As we have seen time and time again, throwing money at the problem just creates an entrenched dependent class, who needs that handout to survive. Republicans think people are basically evil, (which is correct, per the Bible - not to mention a cursory glance at human history) and prefer to let the market help or hinder people, since it is neutral, and motivated people can still get what they need through it, be that rent, food, or college tuition. <br />While the market is by no means perfect, I think it does a better job of distributing the resources. By this, I mean that it's better for both the giver and the receiver. The giver receives something in return, and the receiver is required to earn the benefit. To allow someone to just take, without putting anything in, poisons a person's outlook on life and makes it more difficult for them to be a productive member of society.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/31168589-5691363498908839638?l=livingintheendtimes.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Royhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391395036960385203noreply@blogger.com2