It is not so much a moral argument in my eyes as a case of the have-nots having a serious case of sour grapes with envy thrown in. If I remember my catechism right Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It is really sad that the have-nots would rather take from others than work hard and be successful on their own merits. It is the reverse of the medieval concept of estates or classes in society.
I disagree from my personal perspective, because I am a "have" by nearly any economic measure; inside the top 4% of wage earners. I don't promote the agenda because I will gain anything. It would actually cost me more. It is neither sour grapes nor envy. It just seems like the right thing to do. Are you sure you want to banter about liturgy? Envy is listed as number 6, I think, while gluttony and greed hold down spots 2 and 3...
Then you are the exception that proves the rule. That also begs the question of if you are willing to give up some of what you earn for what you think is a worthy use, why do you think it is OK to force others that don't feel as you do to do the same? This brings us back in a circular manner to the charity argument. My argument is not that welfare is morally incorrect, I just question the governments right to tax for something that is, to me at least, not self-evidently a task of government.No, I don't want to debate liturgy and I should not have brought it up because it then seems that I am arguing morality and I am not. I withdraw the comment.
Charity has never worked with much effectiveness. Some people get helped, but not nearly enough. Look at where the money is:and look at how the bottom 40% has steadily lost its share of wealth:If the people with the money voluntarily helped generously enough, charity might work. But they don't. You have to tax.
Since you're throwing around a moral argument here, isn't it more moral to work than to take from the “haves” and give it to the “I didn't work for this”?Slothfulness is also on that list I believe.
You are once again making a value judgment. How much is “enough” to give and who decides that amount? I am arguing simple possession, not the morality of charity. I simply think it is wrong to take what I or anyone else earns and give it to someone else. You cannot justify that taking without sinking into a moral argument. The simple question is this; what right do those on welfare have to the products of my labor? My answer is equally simple, they have none except fo what I voluntarily give. Whether that equals your arbitrary enough is irrelevant, in my opinion, they have absolutely no right to fruits of mine or anyone else's labor. The key word is right, as the rights enunciated in the Constitution, I will even go so far as to claim they have no rights to it under Natural Law either.
Yes, it is better for people to work if they are able and can find employment. It is difficult if not impossible to help all that truly need it without having some layabouts play the system.I am arguing morality, but if you look at the continuing trend of wealth concentrating and the poor getting less and less of the pie, then look back at history you will see it is unprecedented for a government to survive with this sort of disparity. 60% of the share only 4% of the wealth and even most of that is held by the top third of the strata. And that data is 6 years old with a trend of it getting worse. We are in a pretty precarious spot.
So then in your view, the distribution of wealth in America, if not the world, is unfair and the only way to fix that is through forced levies, i.e. taxation to more equitably distribute the wealth that is created? This is regardless of whether the recipients of such redistribution did anything to create said wealth. I am just trying to be sure I understand what your position is.
I did not say I wanted to fix the imbalance; it is just that the imbalance is the primary thing that creates the conditions where a lot of people are poor and a substantial number of people can meet their own needs and not much more. The minority that could afford are not being charitable enough to help all those in need without being forced into it. It would be great if they would, but that isn't reality. Every generation has had a few great philanthropists, but the problem is much larger than they can handle. I really think a lot of people don't realize how skewed these numbers are. The average person in the top 20% makes 800 times as much money as the average person in the bottom 40%. Yes, my math is right – there are twice as many people sharing that 0.02% as sharing that 84.1%, so you have to double up the calculation to get the average.I don't think it is the only way to address the problem, but it may be the only way to do it in a free enterprise system. I don't think there should be a cap on what you can make; if you work harder/smarter than your neighbor, you should make more (and give more, but still have more left).
Can I offer a different perspective as a non-American?Its an interesting observation, that elections can change domestic policy but generally don't alter foreign policy. Look through history and it is only in highly autocratic states that changing the personnel of the government changes international relations, and pretty rarely even then.The US economy is pretty heavily influenced by military spending. So in the case of the US it is quite likely that a new government won't have much impact on the economy either.I don't follow the polls and the ins and outs, so I have no idea what the election results are likely to be. No doubt if the Tea Party got in it would have a big impact on a lot of aspects of social policy that affect the day to day life of US citizens. But I wonder if it would actually make much difference at all to the big picture. The US will remain a global superpower and will have the guns, ships and planes it needs to keep it that way. Democrats tend to talk more politely to the rest of the world. But their actions are indistinguishable from Republicans, and I predict they will be from the Tea Party too. And I bet they will spend much the same too. You could easily balance the US books by selling off the military hardware. But we all know that isn't going to happen whoever gets in.
I did not say I wanted to fix the imbalance; it is just that the imbalance is the primary thing that creates the conditions where a lot of people are poor and a substantial number of people can meet their own needs and not much more. The minority that could afford are not being charitable enough to help all those in need without being forced into it. It would be great if they would, but that isn't reality.
You are contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. If people don't or would not give enough then you must feel that the situation requires fixing because of stingy rich folk. Do you really think there is a systemic imbalance that holds people in some sort of economic status? It is my personal experience that those that really want to work can find something to to do. It may not be the job they want but work is out there. I think the biggest problem with people is that some are not willing to work unless they have a certain job. I would like to have a white-collar job but I would gladly mow yards if it puts food on the table.Historyscientist,Do you really think de-militarization will fix the budget problems of the US?
You are contradicting yourself within the same paragraph.
Is that not allowed? ;DActually, what I meant was not clear - I am not a "pure" socialist wishing to do away with free enterprise and capitalism, which I thought you implied earlier. When I said I didn't want to fix the imbalance, I meant that I have no desire to do away with the system that creates the imbalance.
If people don't or would not give enough then you must feel that the situation requires fixing because of stingy rich folk. Do you really think there is a systemic imbalance that holds people in some sort of economic status? It is my personal experience that those that really want to work can find something to to do. It may not be the job they want but work is out there. I think the biggest problem with people is that some are not willing to work unless they have a certain job. I would like to have a white-collar job but I would gladly mow yards if it puts food on the table.
There is a systemic imbalance, but it doesn't hold people down in any explicit manner. However, there is a near contradiction in your logic also. Many of those people who don't want to work unless they get a specific job have been educated/trained in a job that could give them a better life. If they take the first thing that comes along then they may become the latest in a long line of lawn mowers, which doesn't put much food on a table.
Historyscientist,Do you really think de-militarization will fix the budget problems of the US?
I think his suggestion is a little over the top, even for a tree hugging dove like myself. I think we spend too much and are a little over eager about getting into conflicts, but if we de-militarize, I think we better prepare for a change in language and religion.
No work puts no food on the table while lawn mowing, or any other manual labor type job, does and does not have to be a dead end. I am not implying that people overqualified for the job they hold should not continue to actively seek a job that they have been trained to do. Expecting to draw welfare or endless unemployment benefits while waiting for that perfect job is a little parasitic don't you think?I do not think that any honest labor is beneath a person's dignity. That is speaking from a guy that worked temp jobs for 2 years to get by after High School, some of which were pretty nasty. Maybe I am just different and have too much pride to expect or even accept a handout. Too proud to work does not mean unable to work. I actually take exception to the notion that there is such a thing as work that is below me.
I think the wealth disparity is natural and virtually unchangeable. The concentration of wealth among a few elites allows for the creation of large corporations that create jobs for others. If wealth is redistributed, it cannot be used as efficiently and the scale of the economy would shrink thus creating mediocrity for all. The only answer is education. Give folks the tools to succeed in the modern economy and let them take their chances. However, if everyone gets education, then the value of that education goes down and the wages such education would garner. See there is no real answer to this problem.
Your comment about education brings something up. Does everyone need a college degree? I would argue that they do not and provide an example of a well paid job that does not require a degree, we need people qualified in trades as well. Back home, the local plumber is over 70 and has been looking to retire for a few years and wants to sell his business to someone. The problem is that there are no qualified plumbers willing to take the place over. He has a well connected business and has served the local, admittedly rural, area for 30+ years. My dad is a friend of his and told me that he will probably just close-up shop because he cant even find someone qualified to give the business to. Keep in mind that plumbers make good money but a plumber does not require a degree, just a trade school and an apprenticeship.Oh yeah, I filled out my absentee ballot and mailed it today and true to my word I refused to vote for an incumbent. That may mean I end up with a Libertarian congressman but better a Libertarian than a pork barrell Republican. I am pretty sure the Republican incumbent will win the race he took something like 57% of the vote last time. I am just dissapointed that Texas has no Tea Party candidates.
Scout,You may be surprised that I am quite similar with respect to what I do - I have never drawn a dime of unemployment and have been underemployed a couple of times. But I had enough time in my field to be established. I worked part time in a warehouse to put myself through tech school and turned down a full time offer even though it would have paid more than the starting rate I took when I found a job in my field. I was able to stay afloat through that, but I sympathize with those that can't.I think it comes down to what consequences you will let people, many of whom have innocent children, suffer for poor choices and/or bad luck. What really frustrates me is that if we were able to administer it better, so that a $5 tax actually resulted in $4 spent on food, lodging or health care for someone who really needed the help, I doubt we would be having this conversation. I think a lot of people speak and/or vote against social programs because the costs are out of control, not because they have a basic disagreement with the government helping the needy.I just got the warning about another post - yours on education. I am a CDI (Control Data Institute) graduate. I am not sure if you are old enough to remember their ads from the 70s and 80s. They would teach you to program computers in a matter of months and then help you find a job, boasting a 97% placement rate. What they didn't tell you on the ads was that they did that by negotiating low (as in pretty close to minimum wage) hourly trials with companies that normally required degrees for programmers. Some companies were nasty about it, hiring 5 trials for each opening and cherry picking. I was fortunate to find a small company who was doing a single hire as a gamble. After I had been with them a few years, I had the "or equivalent" and was able to apply almost anywhere. Now I have 30 years experience and no one really cares what I have on the wall.