Saturday, May 13, 2017

Which is More Caring / Moral?

MP AHCA Sam Even though we dropped of the first page at MP, this treasure trove of comments keeps growing.
"The word you are looking for is "Humanity" no offense. As a non religious, raised catholic, we all need to show "Humanity" if we are to survive in this world, no humanity is 101 the strong survive/ animal kingdom, the way we exterminated the indigenous people (no-humanity) the question comes, how much is enough, when does my part end and the other persons part begin? When do I have more than my fair share because I have been blessed? (Only using the term as a frame of reference)" Dennis 
"Please remember that I see government provided gifts as a 2 edged sword.
  1. On one hand it helps people who are truly in need to live and improve their lives.
  2. On the other hand it is an enabler that allows people to stay trapped in poverty, low education, dependency and lacking hope.
The first is a wonderful thing, the second is about as de-humanizing / immoral as it gets. (ie like feeding livestock) The challenge is how to use charity and social benefits to guide these people to see the value of learning, good choices, work, saving and investing." G2A 
"John:  Your tactic of shifting the argument transparent. Your basic contention was that taxation was immoral ". I must have missed the lessons regarding how the moral thing for individuals to do is to promote society forcefully taking $1 Trillion from certain citizens so that it can be given arbitrarily to other citizens."
I gave you the answer to that: a clear and direct writing by a Catholic publication on the morality and necessity of taxation for the support of the less fortunate members of society.
Your reaction is nothing more than the defense of the cult of self-interest and money, not morality." Neal 
"I believe wholeheartedly that tax payer's funds should be used to take care of the truly disabled. And that tax payer funds should be used to support people in their short term times of need, and to train them to escape dependency. This is what the piece supported.
Please remember from your quote:
"Another moral principle is that everyone is responsible for his or her sustenance"
This seems to be the part that many people on the Left have forgotten. All citizens have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance.
I believe in safety trampolines and you seem to believe in safety hammocks." G2A

77 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

Here is the more fundamental question: Is there a difference between voluntary and involuntary?

If some poor soul ends up with $10 from my wallet, does it matter whether I gave it to him voluntarily, or whether it was involuntarily taken from me in a mugging, or by the tax collector?

Anonymous said...

Is there a difference between voluntary and involuntary?

Depends on scope.

People are bound by contracts, at least when they enter into them freely. Is the constitution a contract, one which binds you? Did you enter into it freely? Does your name appear on the bottom of the document? Or are you not bound by it because it wasn't a contract you personally entered into?

If you are bound by the constitution, something that sets up a government, you are bound by what the government does, even if you disagree with it.

--Hiram

John said...

As I often try to remind Jerry, he is free to leave the USA if he wants to live in a country with different social norms / values.

John said...

Jerry, Ultimately almost everything we do in life is voluntary. We have no more moral right / authority to our property than the native Americans did.

It is our society that makes the rules and grants is the authority.

jerrye92002 said...

"...society that makes the rules and grants is the authority." If by "society" you mean government (a common error) then you could not be more wrong. Government can restrict our natural rights, but it cannot grant them. Therefore, the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" includes the right to one's own morality. If it is immoral to steal from one, even to give to another, then it is immoral for government to do so. Now, taxes "for the public good," where everybody benefits, is a different story.

And if someone points a gun at you in a dark alley and demands your wallet, do you lack the moral right to your property?

Anonymous said...

Well, for one thing, the governing document is the constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, and the constitution says nothing about ""life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The issue raised here is "stealing". Stealing or theft is an unlawful taking. When a taking is provided for under law and lawful authority, it is not a theft or stealing. I just don't see how that is reasonably disputable.

"And if someone points a gun at you in a dark alley and demands your wallet, do you lack the moral right to your property?"

No, but that's not what the government does. If you don't like the facts, it's always possible to rearrange them in one's mind. We elected a president who does that routinely. But that mental rearrangement just doesn't change facts in the real world.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The issue is not what is legal, but what is moral/caring. Stealing is immoral. If you prefer less judgmental language, it is unethical. Even less so, it is impractical. If we all lived by theft, then no one would ever produce anything of value. Government seems headed in that direction with their high taxes, and with regulations that essentially prevent one from benefiting from their own property.

John said...

Jerry,
I carefully worded this just for you...

"It is our society that makes the rules and grants us the authority."

It seems to me that you are forgetting what entity documented the words you chose...

"the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

It was our government and our representatives in that government. The unfortunate reality is that you as a human on Earth have no inherent rights...

You are born naked and no one owes you anything. It is the choices of your Parents, Teachers and the government you live under that decide what you get to keep.

If you disagree with me please reference Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan and the other countries where human and property rights for the most part do not exist.

Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that we are just simple cogs in a big machine? And it is in our best interest to ensure all the cogs are taken care of and well oiled? :-)

And/or banged into shape if they are harming the machine? :-)

My Father once told me that I should own more land because it was more stable and permanent. I reminded him that his keeping that land is wholly dependent on our government's stability and choosing to continue to honor personal property rights. Without our government... No one "owns" land and the strongest can take it by force.

Anonymous said...

Stealing is immoral.

I suppose it is, although one could go in a whole Les Miserables relativism kind of deal.

But my point is, a lawful taking is not stealing. That just isn't something that is reasonably disputable.

As for "ownership", I have never before today heard the claim that just because something is capable of being lawfully taken by the government, it isn't capable of being owned. I don't see the advantage of using words that way.

--Hiram

John said...

Like my Principles... I think how a society / government defines and enforces them can vary greatly.

Steal: "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

Taxation definitely is not stealing...

jerrye92002 said...

"It was our government and our representatives in that government. The unfortunate reality is that you as a human on Earth have no inherent rights..."

And so long as you insist that we are just "humans on Earth" you will see it that way. Our founders wisely said that we are "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights..." and that governments are instituted among men to defend those rights-- those freedoms-- NOT to take them away. Certainly many forms of government in many places, including here at home, have occasionally at least circumscribed those rights and freedoms, but have never been able to change the fact we have them. So when Saddam's boys were using their rape rooms, was participation voluntary or involuntary? When he assumed "ownership" of the Kuwaiti oil fields, was that a voluntary transaction? It was a government action. Was it legal? He claimed it was. Was it moral? I say not, but I can't guess what the rest of you think.

Anonymous said...

If the facts don't support your argument, one way to improve is to search for a different set of facts.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Or use the Socratic method of asking questions that poke immense holes in the opponent's argument.

John said...

For better or worse our CREATOR is a pretty hands off deity.

And governments are not formed to defend rights... Many governments exist to take them away...

Government
1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.

3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.

John said...

As for Saddam's version of lawful / moral... The international community disagreed with him and he paid for it with his life.

I don't see anyone coming to save some wealthy Americans from paying 10% more in taxes so the poor folks in our country can have healthcare, food, etc...

I find it interesting that you in some way can rationalize equating tax rates to rape, torture, invasion, etc. They seem very different to me.

jerrye92002 said...

"And governments are not formed to defend rights..." -- John

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,..." --The Declaration of Independence

jerrye92002 said...

"I find it interesting that you in some way can rationalize equating tax rates to rape, torture, invasion, etc. They seem very different to me."

They are different only in degree. Once government assumes the power to take your freedoms, the rest simply follows. To the basic question, governments have NO morality whatsoever, except for those in it. To "the government," raping you with high taxes is the same as raping you physically. It's control and use of power.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

John said...

Please remember that money only has value because there is a government that says it does... And as I noted earlier... It is our gov't /reps who wrote the Declaration of Independence... Thus "our government's" interpretation of what our government / society supports.

You often say that our government is different from our society, which of course makes little sense since we have government that is controlled by the people via elections.

If the "haves" get too rich, the "have nots" get to vote for people who will redistribute some of that wealth. (ie ACA & 2012 tax increase) If the "have nots" start becoming to much of a burden on society, the "haves" will vote to reduce their free ride. (ie 1996 welfare reform)

It is an excellent system.

jerrye92002 said...

"...government that is controlled by the people via elections."

You really believe that, don't you? So please explain to me, when 65% of the country says we are "headed in the wrong direction," 95% of incumbents get re-elected every time?

"If the "haves" get too rich, the "have nots" get to vote for people who will redistribute some of that wealth."

Or you could just let the have-nots take it, you know, kill the czar and all that. But that wouldn't be freedom and protection of the rights of the minority, would it? You would be using the force of government to INvoluntarily separate someone from their hard-earned. It isn't moral for you to rob somebody, is it? So why is it moral when you ask government to do it for you, or if "government" just gets the cockamamie idea themselves? Have you ever heard a Democrat defend opposition to a tax cut? "Government has needs" they say, as if government should never be asked to make do with less, even as the rest of us must. That's not only immoral, it's brazen indifference.

John said...

Remember my Bi Modal Theory... It is real easy to have 65% thinking we are headed the wrong way while re-electing politicians.

Folks like yourself think we have too many regulations, taxes, programs, etc and it is only getting worse.

Folks like Laurie think we have too few regulations, taxes, programs, etc and it is only getting worse.

And you both blame the other party's politicians... And see your own politicians fighting the good fight... So you re-elect them...

John said...

No need for such extremes, that is the benefit of our government / society.

The people can push pull the "wealth of the people in the country" around with no coups, beheadings, civil wars, etc.

It seems you would prefer a society without this stability. One where the rich can do as they wish with all the other people in the country having little influence. Maybe you would fit in better in Mexico... :-)

jerrye92002 said...

"The people can push pull the "wealth of the people in the country" around with no coups, beheadings, civil wars, etc."

That's an odd way to put it. I thought it was the GOVERNMENT that was taking money from some to give to others. You make it sound as if those who voted for government to do so were somehow NOT complicit in that immorality. What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary?

John said...

Again... You voluntarily live in this society...

Therefore you voluntarily choose to abide by it laws and social norms...

If you don't like it... Start lobbying or Mexico awaits. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

You keep saying that, but what right do you have to involuntarily deport me? What gives you the right to ask government to take from me to give to somebody else, or to you?

And I do NOT "voluntarily abide by the laws." Disobeying the law is PUNISHED, so it is an involuntary situation.

You seem to be really struggling with the difference between voluntary and involuntary. "Caring and morality" must be voluntary or it is not caring and morality.

John said...

You keep denying that you choose of your own free will to stay in this country. No one is threatening to forcefully deport you or make you stay here. If you choose to stay in the asylum with us crazy people, accept the responsibility.

And of course you choose of your own free will to obey the laws and pay your taxes. Many other people choose differently, sometimes the choice has negative consequences and sometimes they get away with it.

Morality:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. "the morality of nuclear weapons"

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

John said...

I really like that bolded definition. It explains how you can truly have your personal morality that is different from that of our society.

""Caring and morality" must be voluntary or it is not caring and morality."

jerrye92002 said...

I will point out that "your money or your life" is also a "free will choice" by your definition.

Your definition of morality lacks one word, and it is most telling. The word "voluntarily" should preface the word "held," and that it does not means it goes without saying. I believe you are one of those objecting when government tries to "impose morality" on all of us. So what would you call taking tax money and giving it to "the poor"? The way I see it, it isn't a question of which is more "moral/caring." It is the fact that government simply cannot be moral. "Society" can, if you will permit the distinction.

Anonymous said...

You keep saying that, but what right do you have to involuntarily deport me?

The broader question this raises is, what is the source of political authority? The more ancient form of political authority is religious, the divine right of kings. In Britain, in theory at least, political authority derives from the queen who was placed on the throne by God. These days, lots of Americans still subscribe to this idea. They will tell you that the rights we have were given to us by God. Many, many people believe the constitution is a divinely inspired document.

A different view is that political authority is derived from people, from the express orv implied consent of the governed. The constitution, I would argue, states this view in it's very first words, "We the People". Those words are a clear rejection of the idea that political authority is divinely inspired. It was a necessary one for the founders, because if they didn't reject the authority of the king, they would have placed themselves, logically and legally, in the role of traitors.

A third source of political authority is power. This is the authority dictators use. Some people, including some on this board, seem partial to this view. They would say that they pay taxes, not because God ordered them to, or because they consented to accept the political authority, but because someone holds a gun to their head.

I don't say necessarily that any of these views are the right view, or the moral view. A lot depends on context. But those are three views of political authority. There may be others.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I am a fan of the HBO TV show, "Game of Thrones". In GOT fandom circles, it is sometimes asked, "Who is the legitimate king of Westeros?" My answer is "it depends". In GOT, there are three contending factions for the throne. I am doing a little bit of hammering square pegs in round holes here, but roughly speaking, each faction bases it's claim on one of the three theories of political power I have listed. The Lannister claim is based on power, both military and financial. The Targareyon claim is based on religion or the supernatural symbolized by the dragons controlled by Daenerys. More problematic for my analysis is the Starks whose power, I would contend, is based on the support of the various clans.

Who has the best claim? The answer, I submit, depends almost entirely on one's underlying view of the legitimacy of authority. There just isn't a universal answer.

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry,
I like Hiram's point that "we the people" authorized and control the government.

The reality is that rarely /never are 320 million American going to agree with everything our society / government stands for... However for the good of each & all of us, we tied ourselves to each other.

And we know that Bill Gates could never have achieved all he did if he had been born in Somalia. If he had even lived into his teens...

So yes our society / government does get to have a say in how much is his and how much is societies. And thankfully we have a system that allows all voting American to weigh in on this.

Just as we get to weigh in regarding how to help or not help the unsuccessful, free loaders and/or criminals among us.

Anonymous said...

The logical problem, for those interested in logic, with the "We the People" argument is posed by the question, "Where did the people get the authority?" Given that I don't have an answer to that question, it is one I avoid asking.

Why would Gates have had a harder time in Somalia? Because he benefited hugely, from the sacrifices of the people who have gone before, things that were given to him gratis by virtue of being born in America.

--Hiram

John said...

I believe the answer is that "We the People" seized the authority after seizing the land from the Native Americans. Kind of like how when a drug gang takes over a territory, they make the rules within their society. As America will until we become weak and someone else takes over...

Ask the Greek and Romans how this works...

Now how was Bill Gates helped by American society:
- Born into a safe country with law, order and property rights
- Born into a country with electricity, clean water, technology, etc
- Born into a country with good schools.

Now I agree that he did seize the opportunities provided, however if he was born elsewhere he may have been killed early, to busy working in the field, fighting wars, etc to have changed the computing world.

I think many Conservatives take the magic that is America for granted. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

"So yes our society / government does get to have a say in how much is his and how much is societies."

Whoa, back the truck up! Bill Gates took what he was given-- freedom, an education, some natural talent-- and he made the best of it. Millions of "we the people" voluntarily purchased his product and he became rich. Now, suddenly, that entirely voluntary transaction must be confiscated, involuntarily, by government fiat, so "we the people" can get back some of what we already spent or, more correctly, so that our "betters" in Washington can give it to those they think more deserving? I'm failing to see the morality, on any level, of replacing voluntary transactions with involuntary ones.

And Bill Gates is a great example. He could have given $70 billion to the government to "care for the poor," but instead he gave it to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is tax free and has done an enormous amount of "good" for the "poor" and for others. If he thought government would have spent it as wisely and well, would he not have just given it to them?

John said...

By Jove, I think he's got it !!!

There is NO FIXED CONTRACT in America... The "House" / "Mgmt" reserves the right to change the deal at anytime...

And apparently enough rich are not helping the poor since there are still many many poor / undereducated people in the country... And the rich are as rich as ever.

John said...

"failing to see the morality, on any level, of replacing voluntary transactions with involuntary ones"

That is because you fight the idea that Bill Gates and Yourself are voluntarily choosing of your own free will to continue living within this society and playing by it's rules.

Just as Pacifists continue to live here of their free will as the USA drops bombs on other countries.

John said...

And you have the option to do as Bill did, give most of your wealth away and avoid paying taxes... So many choices, so little time.

John said...

Morality:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Back to the options on the table:

- take more personal property from wealthier citizens.

- let American citizens go with poor healthcare because of a lack of funding.

Since the unfortunate reality is that few want to really go after Making Americans Healthier or Reducing End of Life Costs

And no... Charity can not carry the huge load.

John said...

So we are back to which of those options are more immoral...

Taking money from some or Watching some people suffer/die?

How should we balance them to do the least damage?

jerrye92002 said...

"And apparently enough rich are not helping the poor since there are still many many poor / undereducated people in the country" Wait a minute! Didn't the government eliminate poverty years ago, by taxing the bejeebers out of everybody in sight and giving people free food, housing, medical care, education, and cable HDTV? How can we POSSIBLY still have poor people, when we spend the equivalent of $21,000 apiece on them, every year?

jerrye92002 said...

"And you have the option to do as Bill did, give most of your wealth away and avoid paying taxes... So many choices, so little time." Bill didn't give it away, he sheltered it from taxes and then did "good" by voluntarily spending it on things that HE thought would help people (and he was mostly right). He and I BOTH still pay a lot in taxes, despite giving a lot to charity.

jerrye92002 said...

"That is because you fight the idea that Bill Gates and Yourself are voluntarily choosing of your own free will to continue living within this society and playing by it's rules."

But these aren't the rules I volunteered to follow. And since I can be severely punished for not following these new rules-- the ones that "fight the War on Poverty"-- I cannot be said to be "voluntarily" choosing either to obey them here or leave the country to avoid them. Neither choice is voluntary. What I CAN voluntarily do is object and point out the immorality (and gross inefficiency) of those "rules." If that is still permitted, of course.

jerrye92002 said...

"Taking money from some or Watching some people suffer/die?"

False choice alert! Ignore health /insurance/ and "people dying" for the moment. Explain to me how government taking $20 TRILLION from "some" and giving it to "others" has eliminated poverty?

If we did NOT take money from "some," but let people take care of themselves and help to care for others, no more would "suffer/die" than currently do under that completely uncaring government system. I choose neither, in other words.

John said...

I do not disagree that the war on poverty had some very negative unintended consequences.
- huge spike in single parent households
- continuation of the dependency / generational poverty
- kids failing in academically
- addiction?

However people did not go hungry, die and/or live in poverty because of those enabling government payments and services. There were no tent cities erected for the destitute and we have no true slums like many third world countries.

It is not perfect, but it is better than what you support... Probably why it is the law in our country.

John said...

Or maybe you support having true slums and hungry unhealthy children in our wealthy country...

It is incredible though that even with all that wealth transfer... Apparently we do have our tent cities and homeless.

jerrye92002 said...

Have you ever worked with the homeless? Two things would be obvious to you. First, these are people who need government's help but are quite obviously not getting it. How can that be? Second, almost all of these folks have some malady – physical, chemical, mental or spiritual – that will require some personalized caring attention to remedy before their outward condition of homelessness can be corrected. Government cannot (and does not) do that.

"It is not perfect, but it is better than what you support." You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but that is all it is. You said it yourself, with the vast amount of wealth expended we have barely made a dent in the problem. Rather than rejecting alternate solutions we should be recognizing the failure of what we are already doing and trying something vastly different, something which we KNOW actually works on its currently limited basis.

John said...

The reality is that what you propose was NOT WORKING, that is why society involved the government and taxation into it.

jerrye92002 said...

Really? Or did political "compassion" get in the way of common sense and REAL caring?

Look at it another way. It was hard work looking after the poor, and involved emotional, financial and a time commitment. It still does. So some politician comes along and tell you he can do this job for you, and SO much better, and somebody else will pay for it! You jump at the chance and by the time you realize he was imagining some world that doesn't exist and his promises meant nothing, it's too late. Caring and morality cannot be fobbed off on government.

The reality is that private charity has a MUCH better track record. Most of the people who went through our transitional housing program are now working and largely self-sufficient.

John said...

Yes I am sure the tax payers elected politicians who supported social programs because the charities were doing such a great job of caring for the unfortunate and disadvantaged...

Get real...

Now as I keep saying, I agree that holding the poor and the bureaucrats accountable for improvement is important... But the idea that charity could carry the load is very naive.

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, but you are defining "the load" as the politicians do, which is by the notion of "entitlement," wherein everybody who asks gets unlimited money from the taxpayer, no strings attached. The "advantage" of private charity is that resources are /limited/, and therefore only those willing to help themselves, however little, get the help, and then only until they can be "back on their feet again." It is never intended to be a multi-generational free ride. There ARE "strings attached" in other words, including you won't blow the money on drugs, you will be taking training /and/ looking for work, etc.

And expecting the bureaucrats, who hold their jobs by virtue of the number of "poor" who remain so, is bound to result in exactly the situation we now have, which is NO improvement. It's not in their best interests, so the "clients" get little real help towards self-sufficiency. If government welfare "fixed" poverty, then don't you think that after 50 years it would all be "fixed"? Who is being naive? I'm just looking at the reality.

John said...

Actually I am on the fence between the Left and Right yards.

See the discussion I am having with Moose.

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, that discussion didn't help me. I see no "fence." I see a yawning chasm that threatens to consume both sides of the island, caused by indifference to reality on the one side, and an unrealistic expectation for common sense to prevail on the other.

John said...

Well it is good that both yards are full of melodramatic drama queens. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

Ah, yes, one side says that we will destroy the planet by burning fossil fuels, while the other points out (correctly) that we have $100 Trillion in underfunding of entitlements, and that's just federal. If you want to make some sort of equivalence argument, I suggest you must divorce yourself from a reality /contrary/ to the first, and from the austere reality of the second.

John said...

The drama continues...

I assume the $100 million refers to something like this.

And under funded "entitlements" really are not a problem, they can be reduced with a simple law change when it is needed... Please remember that welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid are the same in the eyes of the law. They are not savings accounts, they are just a government gift program...

John said...

And "we will destroy the planet by burning fossil fuels" seems a stretch...

Though I agree that most people see unacceptable consequences to our Earth and Humanity if we continue to ever increase the amount of fossil fuels we burn. And this is silly given the better cleaner options we have readily available.

I find it fascinating how both the Left and Right are obsessed with exaggeration.

jerrye92002 said...

Find it fascinating? I find it fascinating that you see any sort of equivalence here. The left insists we must radically curb CO2 production to avoid somewhere around 4 degrees of warming. The Right points out that, by the Left's very own climate models, the effect of such a radical policy would produce only about 1/10 of a degree less warming. How is that an exaggeration?

And "better cleaner options readily available"? Now THAT is an exaggeration.

jerrye92002 said...

"And under funded "entitlements" really are not a problem, they can be reduced with a simple law change when it is needed... "

The number is $100 Trillion, not million. And we could solve this problem easily with a "simple law change" to the tax laws. All we have to do is raise federal taxes to 100% for the next 8 years. No regular spending, no state or local spending, we all live on zero income, but hey, problem solved! Simple!

And if you think that is ridiculous, try ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the entire HUD and HHS departments and budgets. I would think you would see political opposition to that.

John said...

On climate change we will need to agree to disagree. I am not chasing that rabbit again at this time.

Yes the link fact checked the $128 Trillion claim. My typo... Oops... Please provide a source for your claims. They seem unbelievable at best.

jerrye92002 said...

If you are asking for a source for my proposal to cover those "unfunded mandates" (as all private retirement plans are required to do), then it is just simple math. $128 trillion divided by the total GDP of the United States of roughly $16 trillion, comes out to exactly 8 years of a 100% tax rate. Some would say that is not a practical solution.

jerrye92002 said...

BTW, when you are ready to chase rabbits again, I have irrefutable proof it is a lie/hoax/scam/pickaword. Remember Piltdown man?

John said...

Let's start small... Proof that there are $100 Trillion in unfunded entitlements.

jerrye92002 said...

This looks pretty good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
The difference between $128T and the more common $65-85T is that the smaller number is the shorter "horizon"-- those alive today, basically. The larger number is the "infinite horizon" assuming no changes to these programs, meaning we get further and further in the hole. Can we say unsustainable?

John said...

National Debt

John said...

I will probably need to dedicate a future blog to this one... But since it is 75 years of obligations and they can be reduced anytime with the stroke of a pen... I am still unsure what the issue is.

Unfunded obligations excluded
The U.S. government is obligated under current law to make mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects that payouts for these programs will significantly exceed tax revenues over the next 75 years. The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) payouts already exceed program tax revenues, and social security payouts exceeded payroll taxes in fiscal 2010. These deficits require funding from other tax sources or borrowing.[18] The present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have had to be set aside in 2009 in order to pay for the unfunded obligations which, under current law, will have to be raised by the government in the future. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, health care programs will require nearly five times more funding than Social Security. Adding this to the national debt and other federal obligations would bring total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[19] However, these unfunded obligations are not counted in the national debt.

John said...

Not to say we should start reducing the benefits and/or increasing the premiums. (ie taxes)

Unfortunately pretty much no one is willing to increase the payroll taxes to match the desired payout.

And pretty much no one is willing to cut the benefits...

Bummer...

jerrye92002 said...

The problem is that government simply refuses to consider the solution of increasing the payouts and reducing the taxes simultaneously, which they could do at any time, while eliminating the debt burden that normally follows.

jerrye92002 said...

Compare and contrast the current government solution with private charity.
one small nonprofit

John said...

I like the idea but it is false equivalence..

Solutions for Change like Charter / Private school only takes the people who are highly motivated to learn, improve, work, etc.

The government systems have to take all people and keep them alive and/or in school no matter what the attitude / behavior of the people are.

And unfortunately the Liberals have no desire to with hold cash or services to promote the unsuccessful to change their ways. They want to keep feeding and caring for "their rabbits in the dependency cage" and watch them multiply.

And you aren't much better as you fight society controlling the dumb irresponsible rabbits more aggressively and making sure they have easy access to free birth control.

jerrye92002 said...

So let me get this straight: Because Solutions for Change has limited resources and chooses to put them towards people for whom they can do the most good, they must be closed down and every client tossed back into the welfare system that won't help them in the least? How uncaring can you be? Shouldn't the moral/caring approach be to make the welfare system MORE like Solutions, rather than make Solutions like the welfare system?

And I AM much better than that. The liberals will fight it all the way, as you point out, but rather than reward (as liberals do) or punish (as you prefer) irresponsible behavior, I (and many conservatives I know) prefer to simply offer better alternatives, like Solutions (or Catholic charities, or many others).

John said...

A. No one is suggesting that "they must be closed down and every client tossed back into the welfare system ". Where do you get this stuff?

B. I am certain that the government welfare and training services help many Americans every year, just like the public schools do. My point is that Solutions for Change and Catholic Charities have a much easier and less expensive job because they get the people who truly believe that they are part of the problem, and that they need to learn and change. Where as the Gov't systems end up caring for the truly hopeless folks who want to blame others for their being trapped in the dependent bunny cage.


John said...

C. Please remember that I am for sticks and carrots just like you are. My sticks are just different.

I want to put requirements on people in return for their receiving government assistance. Meaning that they need to do something to earn their benefits.

Whereas you want to decimate the gov't safety to the point that these folks are hungry, homeless and so desperate that they will do whatever the charity asks to get assistance.

I am not sure if yours would qualify as more moral?

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but I read your words. You criticize Solutions for only taking willing participants, then "praise" public welfare for taking all comers, when you KNOW that system doesn't work well for most people; that charities are FAR more successful. And the reason Solutions is "easier and less expensive" is because half the work is already done, and people are WILLING and LOOKING for an alternative to the welfare system. *I'm simply suggesting we increase the availability of the alternatives until all those who WANT something better are able to access it. THEN we can start applying some sticks to those who just want to freeload. And what's the difference between your "government sticks" and what private charities require? I want to offer carrots, you want to offer the short end of the stick. I don't think morality enters in unless you want it to, because the first question is one of simple efficacy.

John said...

Actually I did not criticize or praise either of them...

"I like the idea but it is false equivalence..

Solutions for Change like Charter / Private school only takes the people who are highly motivated to learn, improve, work, etc.

The government systems have to take all people and keep them alive and/or in school no matter what the attitude / behavior of the people are."

I criticized your challenging me to compare and contrast pumpkins and apples, as if they in some way face the same challenges. So I guess what I did was contrast them as you asked.

John said...

Jerry,
You want to offer carrots as the alternative to starvation, no medical care, no home, etc... These are the biggest sticks you can hit with... Stop kidding yourself...

My withholding some money if they fail to show improvement and make good choices is nothing compared to what you want to force upon them.

jerrye92002 said...

Not sure what you are reading, but it certainly isn't what I wrote.

I asked you to compare and contrast RESULTS and, on a secondary basis, the cost or, in total, the efficacy of the two systems.

And you're headed straight for the argument we always have. You believe people are on welfare because of bad choices and "sticks" are needed to motivate them. I believe they are on welfare for a shortage of better choices-- aka carrots. I am estimating that 80% would respond readily to good choices, as witness the long waiting list for programs like Solutions. Add a few sticks to the other 20% IN ADDITION to the carrots, and give it time. It will work.

John said...

Well you will have to keep believing that because it is unlikely that our society is going to test your theory.

jerrye92002 said...

Well, since most believe that man-made climate change is real, you are probably right. But I suggest to you that, just like in climate change, the proof to the contrary is readily available to those willing to pay attention. In this case, the fact that private charities routinely produce quick and inexpensive "life turnarounds" proves conclusively that government welfare is not the best "caring/moral" model.