Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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...
Free market capitalism has panned out, and been relatively sucessful, since the beginning of recorded history. It's not a theory, it's how the world has been working since the Greeks and perhaps before. Sparta practiced a form of socialism/communism, Athens practiced capitalism. Which one of the two amassed more wealth?
I am using a different standard for success, I guess. That is yet another thing that makes the debate difficult. Yes, many people get rich. I don't suggest abandoning free enterprise. People who work harder should make more and be able to afford more things. But the part that hasn't panned out is that not taking a portion of their wages to provide for those in need has never resulted in a big upswell in the economy that provides adequate employment for everyone. Those who can't work have never all had their needs fully met by private charities. Many are helped, but we can do better. I think we should, but not everyone agrees.
Of course it's not 100%, but it's as close to perfect as humans can get. That's just life and sometimes life isn't fair.
Is it really as close as we can get? Applying economic theory that hasn't panned out?I understand there are some people who just refuse to participate and do their share. I believe they are referred to as "the least of these".According to the texts that Christian conservatives claim to believe, only one perfect being has walked the Earth and he foretold a grim fate for those amassing wealth while others went hungry.
One problem is there is no absolute delineation between the “can't work” crowd and the “won't work” bunch. Make it too restrictive and some people who deserve help get shut out. Make it too liberal (yes, I do believe there is such a thing 🙂 and sadly admit that is the current state) and you have people taking advantage instead of working.Another problem is that innocent kids will pay the price for their parents laziness, whether it is actual or perceived. I am not comfortable with that.I understand the theory that jobs will get created if wage earners take home more money, but it hasn't really panned out in practice. Even in the best of times, some people will be out of work. Depending on 100% employment of the work force is unrealistic.
once you earn past a certain amount, then share some of what you make with those less fortunate.
They already do. It's called "providing jobs"
Assuming that is correct (and it isn't in all cases; I make substantially above the median and employ no one), I have a couple of questions for you...What about those who can't work?What about hose who won't work?
If fiscal responsibility is indeed the central issue for the Tea Party, neither major party is really a good fit. But the GOP isn't the lesser of two evils with respect to that issue.
That is kind of the point I have been trying to make all along in my advocacy for the Tea Party to try and form a 3rd party. The key to why they have not in my opinion is perceived electability and most conservatives, whether fiscal or social tend to view Democrats/liberals as at least partially mentally ill.The Republicans may indeed have spent more; it is the entitlement programs that really burn people up though. There just seems something inherently wrong to most conservatives with governmental redistribution of wealth and that is what entitlement programs in actuality are. That is also the point I tried to make earlier about charity vs government programs. Charity is voluntary taxation to fund entitlement programs is involuntary charity on the part of taxpayers.You may disagree with me here and you are free to do so. However, I don?t see how you can logically make the point that it is somehow the duty of the taxpayer to support others. I just can?t see it. Basic fairness has nothing to with it. Fair is not getting something for nothing and that is what the recipients of entitlement aid are getting. As a taxpayer I may be getting something for those dollars; at least those getting entitlements are not as restless. I just do not think I am getting value for dollar out of them.
I cannot make a case for supporting others without bringing in morality. But we have separation of church and state, so even though the Bible and most other religious texts advocate it, it can't be made law just because religions tell us it is the right thing to do. Certainly immoral acts that kill or injure others should be illegal, as should the taking of another's property. So the debate is at what point we stop legislating morality, not whether or not we do.I have admitted before that bleeding heart liberals have poor survival skills. Putting your own needs above those of others is natural, even healthy. If you won't eat until all the hungry are fed then you will surely starve. But putting your prosperity completely above the needs of others is another matter. All we are asking is that it not be completely above - once you earn past a certain amount, then share some of what you make with those less fortunate. You can still prosper. Voluntary charity doesn't work, especially when the wealth gets too concentrated. It helps, but it just doesn't go far enough. If we stopped government sponsored aid programs, children will starve and/or die of exposure living in the streets. Most liberals harbor some suspicion that conservatives are okay with that, but don't like to admit it.
No the President sends a budget request to the House, the House actually writes the budget.
The President submits a budget to Congress, which then passes legislation to actually appropriate and authorize funds to be spent. Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/usgd/budget.html - The US Government Documents section at the Columbia University library. They have links to all those past budgets submitted by previous presidents I mentioned earlier. Yes, both parties tend to overspend, but the Republicans have a documented history of being the biggest spenders. If fiscal responsibility is indeed the central issue for the Tea Party, neither major party is really a good fit. But the GOP isn't the lesser of two evils with respect to that issue. The Tea Party candidates all seem to be social conservatives, whether that is a proclaimed position of the party or not. I think that is what makes the GOP more compatible.
I think it is largely geography that makes us think of the Byzantines as splitting off, rather than the empire relocating the seat of power and shedding the old stomping grounds because it was becoming too expensive to maintain. I think smart money was on the east when they split and the demise of the western half was not that much of a surprise.
Scout,Actually, "setting the tone" is an understatement. The President creates the budget and gives it to congress. Congress has the power to change it, but rarely has and I don't think it ever has changed it significantly. Since Ronald Reagan was elected, there have been 20 budgets submitted by Republican administrations. I think you will be hard pressed to find one out of the 20 that is an example of being fiscally responsible.That is an odd parable. I was expecting the one that provided for your basic needs to be the Democrat and figured there was going to be a twist at the end that made the rocks desirable as a weapon or something.Ski,A little nit...
socially liberal (pro-abortion, gay rights, pot)
I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion"; most people who are pro-choice are actually also pro-life if they are faced with the decision. They just don't believe they have the right to decide for everyone regardless of circumstances. Another well known secret is that most of us are NIMBYs when it comes to gay rights.
It might surprise you to find out which administrations were truly fiscally conservative:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_termsLook at the increases and decreases in the debt to GDP ratio. I know, congress plays its part and it's not just the administration that is responsible but the executive branch definitely sets the tone on spending. Anyway, that is an additional reason to question the tea partiers' choice of existing parties to cozy up with.
It's not name-calling, it's an accurate description. Would "lack of common sense" and "godlessness" of the Left be better?
Not really. Substantive discussion might be.
Are people finally beginning to wake up to the stupidity, evil, and illogic of the Left?
Lets not resort to sweeping generalizations and name calling; that is the sort of thing that can make these discussions generate more heat than light. I think one of the biggest problems with a two party system is the inherent polarization. I can't be a little left of center; I have to choose between extremes.
Scout,Wow - very thorough. On the welfare issue, I would have to remind you that not everyone has family, and that sometimes entire families need help. In fact, traditional families with a single breadwinner and a stay at home parent often have the smallest cash reserves (in terms of how long they can stay afloat if the money quits coming in) and are a big financial burden to expect another relative to take on.While I think the government should do more than you do, I do think they should do each thing only once - locally, at the state level, or at the national level. I am not as big on states rights as it appears you are. This business of legalizing something in one state and not others seems to fly in the face of national unity. How can we speak to other nations with one voice if we aren't sure what to say? Do we want Mexico to stamp out pot farming, or make sure it is "medical grade" ::) before it is shipped to California and Colorado? Not that it matters, but I think they should go ahead and legalize and tax that; we waste a lot of money fighting it and make criminals out of people who aren't trying to hurt or steal from others. I also don't think the poorest states should have to make do on the meager taxes they can collect.I saw a different side of education in the 70s. My parents paid for me to go to a city high school when we lived outside the city limits because the county schools where we lived (Whitfield Co, GA) were so bad. A graduate from the local high school was refused entry into the military because he was functionally illiterate. Some localities just won't get the job done without oversight. The DOE is overkill, though.I am sort of with you on the "my land" ideas with a few caveats... You can't go creating an environmental disaster. Communities that set covenants when they are developed and don't change them have a right to expect people who buy a home their to abide by them.You can't break the law and it is reasonable for law enforcement to want to look around if there is a reason to suspect that you are.As far as taxes, I have a high income, but I support the idea of income tax. I think it should be true flat rate with very few exemptions, though. Wealth distribution is way out of balance and has only gotten worse. If you even the load of cost across the board, there are too many people who just can't afford it. I support income tax not because it is fair, because it isn't. I support it because it is practical. I support taxing land holdings for the same reason.The reason that so many of my liberal brethren get really emotional about social programs is that they think unbridled compassion makes us better than those who place limits on it. It doesn't; it makes us different but not necessarily better. We're worthless in battle and sometimes battle is necessary. Sharing food with a less prepared hungry person when you barely have enough is neither practical nor logical. Some of us are wired that way though. Darwinism tells us we are living on borrowed time behaving this way, but what feels right isn't changed by cold logic.
Is this question about federal, state, or local government or all of the above?
You found one of my conservative hot buttons - government redundancy! >:(Education is a big one. For the most part, counties (often with state and/or federal help) provide K-12 education, states provide colleges and the federal government supplies a ridiculous bureaucracy. There should be some national standards, but I think they should be set by bills in congress where we supposedly have a voice. If most of the money isn't spent on school buildings, buses, teachers and materials that are used in the classroom, then we are doing something very wrong.
Does circular logic count? ;DOK, this is an opinion filled with debatable points...People band together because it works better for a lot of reasons. They can share resources and perform specialized jobs instead of everyone having to account for every single thing they need to survive or better yet prosper. Some people protect the community, some farm, some hunt, some prepare food, some build/maintain shelter and so on. As these communities get larger, they get more complex and there are so many interactions that some people have to begin doing nothing but managing the interactions to make sure there is enough shelter, enough crops and enough people assigned to defend the community. When communities begin interacting with other communities, it gets even more complex.This is when government becomes necessary. Control is needed or the community will descend into chaos.People will start to become aware of their relative value to the community and some form of currency has to be developed to reward work appropriately. The currency is traded for products or to get others to perform services. Government controls the currency.Man's free will has some unfortunate side effects and some members of the community will try to take shortcuts to become more prosperous by taking the property or currency of others as well as committing other inconsiderate acts. Government provides the structure for policing these actions and enforces punishment for violations.I could go on with other examples, but lets start with these two. Do you think either of these two issues could be resolved without a government? If so,please explain that. It is likely that what you will describe will in fact be a form of government.What I am getting is that I think we can agree that some form of government has to exist for a civilization to thrive. Next is the issue of tax. I hope we can agree that government costs money and that it is not realistic to get that money unless there is a regulated method of collecting it.As these communities grow, there are some gains and losses. One year the crops might be great, the next year not so much. Not all the harvesters are needed at harvest time. Some people will run out of currency because of bad luck. Some others may run out because they are not doing anything valuable to the community. The perceived value of some jobs versus others and the inclination by some to save and others to spend will result in some large disparities in the distribution of currency. There will be some people in the community who cannot afford the cost of living in the community. You basically have three choices about what to do with these members of the community - drive them out, let them starve or take care of them. Yes, morality enters here and I presume the best choice is to take care of them. How should this be done? I really see the government as the only logical choice. The people are driven by rewards - they perform work to gain currency. There is no profit in providing for others. Yes, there are some exceptions, but not enough.This government thing is starting to sound expensive; maybe we better rethink that anarchy alternative... OK, anarchy is a bad idea. Well then, since I have to pay for government, I want more currency for the work I do. If you followed me this far, I am probably about to lose you - I think our compensation does include enough to pay for government to help those in need. If you don't believe that, then there is a problem with believing the private sector will take care of those in need.My problem is not with the government providing those services or using my money to do it. I am on board with that. What I don't like is that they do it in a very inefficient manner.That was the long answer. the short answer is the emotional one - nothing else works and I don't want kids to starve in an experiment to prove that. If we don't force people to chip in to pay for food and shelter for those who don't have it, we won't provide for nearly as many of them. Yes, there are a bunch of lazy layabouts that will get some of it also. I don't have an answer for that, but taking it out of the government's hands would not change that.One of the reasons that this gets emotional is that if you have the opinion (as I do) that there will not be enough help provided if the contributions are not mandatory, then it is easy to infer that people who don't want it this way are willing to let the needy starve. However, I try to keep in mind that not everyone is of that opinion.
