Moose made an interesting comment DEMs Heroes GOPers Villains. He wrote:
Invest:
I also asked the following in the previous post comments.
"I am more than happy to invest in the citizens of this country through my taxes, because it benefits the entire country. I’m sorry that you can’t see beyond the end of your nose. We are all poorer for the policies of Republicans."That came in response to my question(s).
"What recommendation do you have for encouraging every citizen to:
- Learn, Improve and Work
- Save and Invest for Their Future
- Make Good Life and Health Choices"
So after reading Moose's response I had the following thoughts:
- What is the return Moose seeks?
- How will he determine if he made a "good" investment?
- If there is no improvement, is it really an investment?
- If a friend or family member asked Moose for thousands of dollars per year, would he give it to them?
- If the friend or family member did not work full time, did not work to improve their situation or made bad / wasteful decisions, would Moose keep writing them checks year after year?
- If the friend or family member has a child and is barely able to stay financially above water, and they get pregnant again... Will Moose increase his yearly "investment"?
- to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return
- to make use of for future benefits or advantages
- to involve or engage especially emotionally
"Do we as a society see unsuccessful people as:I believe in #2, where as often Liberals fight something as logical as work and training requirements."
- needy dependent creatures to be fed and cared for?
- capable humans who can succeed given the correct tough love incentives and expectations?
Thoughts?
57 comments:
The return:
They are healthy
They have food
They have a roof over their heads
Moose
So do hogs, chickens, and domesticated pets.
I am suddenly remembering how Rush Limbaugh paraphrases liberals when he says, "you poor b*d, you simply cannot make it on your own."
A Republican, comparing humans to animals. Sad, but not surprising. It seems to be de rigeur on this blog and in the Administration.
Moose
You may recognize these:
Feed the hungry.
Give water to the thirsty.
Clothe the naked.
Shelter the homeless.
Visit the sick.
Visit the imprisoned, or ransom the captive.
Bury the dead.
Care for creation.
Please notice what is not there.
Moose
Avoiding the animal / owner comparisons, are we back to this philosophy issue?
"Do we as a society see unsuccessful people as:
1.needy dependent creatures to be fed and cared for?
2.capable humans who can succeed given the correct tough love incentives and expectations?"
Moose,
What do you do in your personal life with regard to acquaintances who ask you for money while shooting themselves in their foot?
My wife and I have helped out strangers, family members, friends, etc who have had significant money problems in their lives.
Usually we knew the money was never coming back. However we were willing to help people who were in need.
Each time though we had a frank discussion with the recipient and explained to them that this well had limits and that they had to make some better decisions in the future.
Moose,
Have you ever studied the concept of Co-Dependency?
"Co-dependents have low self-esteem and look for anything outside of themselves to make them feel better. They find it hard to “be themselves.” Some try to feel better through alcohol, drugs or nicotine - and become addicted. Others may develop compulsive behaviors like workaholism, gambling, or indiscriminate sexual activity.
They have good intentions. They try to take care of a person who is experiencing difficulty, but the caretaking becomes compulsive and defeating. Co-dependents often take on a martyr’s role and become “benefactors” to an individual in need. A wife may cover for her alcoholic husband; a mother may make excuses for a truant child; or a father may “pull some strings” to keep his child from suffering the consequences of delinquent behavior.
The problem is that these repeated rescue attempts allow the needy individual to continue on a destructive course and to become even more dependent on the unhealthy caretaking of the “benefactor.” As this reliance increases, the co-dependent develops a sense of reward and satisfaction from “being needed.” When the caretaking becomes compulsive, the co-dependent feels choiceless and helpless in the relationship, but is unable to break away from the cycle of behavior that causes it. Co-dependents view themselves as victims and are attracted to that same weakness in the love and friendship relationships."
Moose, I did not make the comparison, you did. Why are you so unwilling to recognize the human dignity and potential of your fellow citizens, such that you would demand that some give of what they earn to others who have not? Seems to me that you see yourself as superior to both sides of the debate, and I'm not buying it.
What is "not there" is the notion that GOVERNMENT can discharge our personal obligations to charity, coercing from the "rich" to give to the "poor," thus cheating both sides of the exchange.
Jerry,
So do you truly believe we should stop all government funded healthcare, welfare, training programs, food programs, etc?
And that somehow charitable citizens and organizations would step up and carry the load?
If the charities fall short, are you really willing to subject the kids to hunger, homelessness, illness, etc? Will you advocate we go back to tent cities / slums near the cities?
Please remember that you are against providing kids with basic sex education and making it harder for them to obtain reliable birth control.
And yet you demand that the people who are foolish and irresponsible enough to unintentionally make a baby should be trusted to raise that baby without much over sight.
G2A Access to Sex Ed and BC
G2A Holding Adults Accountable (ie saving kids)
"What is "not there" is the notion that GOVERNMENT can discharge our personal obligations to charity, coercing from the "rich" to give to the "poor," thus cheating both sides of the exchange."
Then we can hardly call ourselves, as a nation, just or moral or Christian, can we? If we are unwilling to pool our resources to do what is required of us, we have abrogated our social responsibility.
There are very few people who could fund a $1B program on their own, yet it would only cost each individual in this country $3 for such a thing to be done collectively.
As I have said many times. Republicans want to count beans. Democrats want to help people. You prove it every day on this blog.
Moose
"Please remember that you are against ..." I am perfectly capable of remembering my own opinions. If I want my opinion, I will ask ME, not you. Thanks.
I keep struggling with your statements that "...both sides seem to have their failings." I don't see it that way. The Left wants to substitute government responsibility for personal responsibility and the Right wants the opposite. Those are similar "failings" but certainly not equivalent. In pure human and practical terms, the Right is right.
Also, I resent the idea that if government doesn't do something (food, rent, etc.) it does not get done. Sure, private charity could not support the current welfare system, though if government left all the money back in individual hands, it could. Government doesn't spend one dime that it doesn't first take from somebody. But the important point is that private charity would NOT support anything like the current welfare system. We have all manner of private charities that take critical cases and turn them into productive, self-supporting citizens. The current government-run system does not and cannot.
Jerry,
History shows that charity was not adequate in the past... That is why we have today's system. Remember that God Works in Mysterious Ways
And again, what happens to folks if charity is not adequate?
Moose,
If it is only $3 per person, then charity should easily be able to fulfill the need.
Why again are you avoiding any of the many questions I posed above?
"If it is only $3 per person, then charity should easily be able to fulfill the need."
That's some really bad math you're presenting.
Moose
John, your questions are not relevant. They belie a desire for people to be worthy of assistance. What they need is basic needs met, not judgment.
Moose
Ah... You said $3 per Billion... And since we spend $1 Trillion on "basic needs". (ie keeping needy dependent creatures fed and cared for) We as a country are actually paying $3,000 per man, woman and child. Got it... That is scary...
Funny you should say that. I just read that the current deficit is expected to be $1T. So that's $3000 from every man, woman, and child to pay for the tax cuts to the 1% and all the other nonsense the Republicans have cooked up. Looks like it's the Democrats who know how to run the business of government. I mean, that makes sense...since Republicans hate government.
Moose
Moose,
So help me understand the difference, you would likely be unwilling to spend $3,000 every year to feed, clothe and/or care for someone who's lifestyle is self destructive.
And yet you think it appropriate that "government" take $3,000 or much much more for a wealthier person to give money to someone who's lifestyle is self destructive.
Help us understand your rationale?
"charity was not adequate in the past..." Who are you to make that judgment? If private charity set expectations on people that they did not want to meet, private charity gave them less or nothing. That is, they were held responsible for the assistance they got and the understanding was they would work to not need it. That it was not "adequate" to make the poor into a cushy captivity was also part of the "system." What you did not get from your own efforts or from your neighbors' charity you had to get with your own redoubled efforts. We have the government welfare system we have because government is incapable of true charity; they are even called "entitlements." There is no incentive to forgo an entitlement, and no limit to how much one feels entitled to have. It is contrary to human nature.
Willing to invest in people? Absolutely. What's my return on that investment?
Jerry,
Let's try that again...
And again, what happens to folks if charity is not adequate?
Do the kids go hungry? Do you take the kids away? To where?
Does the addict die in the gutter?
Here is a source for the claim I make above. The History and Rationale for Welfare
It is not possible for charity to be inadequate. People will work for their own survival, and others will help as their means permit and their conscience/faith dictate. Someplace there will be a balance that respects the human dignity and freedom of all involved.
IF the purpose of government welfare is to turn poor folks into productive citizens, why, after most of a century, do we have more poor folks than ever before? I'm not talking a cold turkey change, but a rational process of incentives and opportunities, with rewards, that over time would vastly decrease the need for welfare and vastly strengthen our overall economy. It's not that the Right doesn't want to spend money, it's that they resent having it thrown down the proverbial rathole on things that do not work.
"What's my return on that investment?"
What's in it for you? You help a person who doesn't have what they need, while you have all that you need, and you ask what's in it for you? There's no response to that. Your true nature is laid bare.
"...why, after most of a century, do we have more poor folks than ever before?"
Republican economic policies.
Moose
Moose,
Now I realize that attacking others is easier than self contemplation and answering questions. However it would be nice if you would try to explain your rationale for wanting to give away other people's money, where you would not spend your own.
As for investment returns, I never said they had to come back to us directly. We give a lot to charity to help others improve themselves. That move towards improvement and independence is all the return I need to justify sending more money to the needy who are trying to improve their circumstances.
I am just am against sending money to people who refuse to change / improve themselves.
Maybe they should be aborted.
Moose
"I am just am against sending money to people who refuse to change / improve themselves."
You're also against spending money on programs to help them rise from their station, because that is what Republicans continually and consistently do.
Moose
Moose,
I am fine with morning after pills and first term abortions, if the baby mama / dada are immature irresponsible broke and unwilling to give the child up for adoption to a more qualified parent.
Remember my goal: Every child in America should be raised well by caring capable parent(s).
As always... Conservatives are usually more charitable. And I am pretty certain I give more to charities than you do.
So again, enough about GOPers and me...
Has self contemplation given you any enlightening thoughts yet?
Remember one of my favorite quotes. "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." Tolstoy
Jerry,
And yet charity fails millions of poor people around the world every day... :-(
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."
Weird. I'm not the one who compares people to animals on a regular basis. I'm not the one asking people to show worthiness before receiving help from the community (country) in which they live. The list goes on...
"Has self contemplation given you any enlightening thoughts yet?"
Says the guy who can't extrapolate from his own experience to that of people who aren't like him. (The great sexual orientation debate)
Moose
Source: 11 Facts about Global Poverty
Source 2: Death by Inequality
Moose,
Again with the attacks... It is too bad you seem to fear discussing the actual issues and your personal rationale.
Maybe some day...
I’m not attacking you. I’m just saying you’re in no position to question my ‘self contemplation’.
Moose
"And yet charity fails millions of poor people around the world every day... :-("
All you are telling me is that the total economic activity of the world, or even of our very successful nation, is insufficient to lift everyone to freedom from all want. Remember that the "poor" in America have a standard of living almost inconceivably "rich" in other nations. Most poor have TV, computers, 3BR homes, probably a car (I know you can look up these details). What is needed to improve the lot of the poorest of the poor is to raise total economic activity. In that I am happy to "invest" because a rising tide lifts all boats. But whether I invest in capital goods or in making a poor guy into a more productive citizen, having people more productive increases total economic activity and directly improves the lives of the individual citizen (and family) made so. You cannot make one man rich by making another poor. Government cannot create wealth by transferring it from one to another. Why is the fantasy so popular among so many, that such is possible?
Furthermore, I’ve explained my position literally dozens of times. Then you restate it as something else and expect me to discuss something I’m not talking about. So no, I won’t answer your questions. Perhaps you could actually try to understand what I mean when I say that people are deserving of food, healthcare, and housing because they are...wait for it...people.
Moose
Moose
Moose,
"people are deserving of food, healthcare, and housing because they are people"
At least you are honest about your belief, though I still wonder if you live by it.
Or if you just believe that "someone else" should be taxed more to ensure the feeders and waters stay full.
Jerry,
The simple fact is that millions die every year in this world, and many thousands die in the USA even with our social systems and charity in place.
And in every country there are the wealthy and powerful who could do more... But they don't... That is why progressive taxation and social systems were developed, charity alone failed.
So we have Jerry who wants to leave it to charities to determine who gets assistance and when with their limited funding and organizational beliefs / values.
And we have Moose who believes people should be allowed to freeload on the other working / investing tax payers because they are human and therefore deserve a free ride even if their life style choices and lack of ambition leaves them with little or no income.
No wonder we have an on going disagreement... :-)
I am guessing that both of you have one thing in common.
You believe that men and women should be allowed to have as many children as they wish?
Please remember that I am not too worried about most healthy adult "poor" people. I have faith that that they will find a charity or social service program that will help them survive.
I am mostly concerned for the children of "unsuccessful" people. These people are barely capable of caring for themselves, they likely would not be allowed to adopt a baby and yet they are free to make and keep babies. It is ever so strange. :-(
"And in every country there are the wealthy and powerful who could do more... But they don't.."
So what, exactly, sets you so strongly against the notion of individual freedom and personal responsibility? Why is it your, or Moose's, decision as to how much "more" the wealthy must do for the "deserving poor"? How much "more" could the "deserving poor" do for themselves, if government would quit standing in the way of their opportunities?
I'll say it again. It isn't how you divide the pie, it's about baking a bigger pie.
Well... Above you said that charity would be more than adequate to care for the needy... I have provide many sources explaining that people in the USA and around world are dying and have died in the past because of a lack of charity.
I assume you will keep your position that "charity will grow to an adequate level" and "people will strive more effectively and diligently" even in the face of all my history and sources.
Do you have any facts, data, history to support your opinion?
No, you misunderstand. Charity is NOT a component of the wealth of individuals, because it depends on the charity of other individuals. Charity can NOT be a component of "adequate." What people earn for themselves can be adequate or inadequate, and is what it is. Again, the only way everybody can have "adequate" is for the total economic pie to get bigger. Wealth redistribution, even if perfect, keeps the pie the same size.
I have only simple logic to support the position, plus my considerable experience with charity and missions around the world. The old "give a man a fish" theory of helping the poor.
Well I am pretty sure most people will consider it a failure when 10 people die while you are teaching one to fish... Which countries were you in, I am curious how many poor people are still dying there each year?
I whole heartedly agree that Moose's philosophy of people are "owed free stuff without expectations" will and has led to terrible long term consequences. (ie propagation of dependency, poverty and entitlement from generation to generation)
However we also know that your solution leads to poor people dying as "good people" look away. Somewhere between these extremes there must be a better solution.
By the way, you avoided my question...
"You believe that men and women should be allowed to have as many children as they wish?"
These fit well here.
VOX Work Reqts
WAPO Work Reqts
NYT Work Reqts
WH Work Requirements
The locales in which I worked have seen remarkable economic growth (relative to where they were). At some point you must accept that you cannot save everybody. If I teach one to fish, then 11 do not starve, only 10. It has to be good enough. Charity isn't a miracle, nor is government "investment." And government welfare gets us nothing. I cannot produce $400B in added GDP either way, neither by building one school building nor by digging a well.
Do I believe men and women should be allowed ... children? As opposed to what? mandatory sterilization or abortion? Yes. Remember that as people become richer they have fewer children. I prefer to tackle the problem from that direction.
I am sure the tens of millions of Welfare and Medicaid recipients would disagree with you.
As you know, no sterilization required. Just a little knowledge, medication, reprioritization and accountability.
I think you are confusing causation and correlation again...
I'll allow that perhaps your magic wand can create a "beneficial" eugenics war, while requiring sterilizations and abortions without performing any.
So, because millions of freeloaders do not want the gravy train stopped, I have to keep shoveling MY coal into it? I think you are letting your compassion run away with your common sense. Want prosperity? Quit doing things that take away from economic wealth rather than building it. Top-down management doesn't work very well, you've said so. Government can only hamper (or enable) wealth; they cannot create it.
You are starting to argue like a liberal... Using scary words and talking in absolutes.
Let's first study the word eugenics...
"the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis."
And then compare that to my "baby mama / daddy" recommendations.
"3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4. If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.
7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent."
Yep ... Pretty much nothing in common unless you are referring to stopping serial Baby Mamas from having and keeping a slew of children they can not afford to care for.
Or seriously crimping the financial life of serial Baby Daddies to stop them from making a slew of children they can not afford to care for.
But please free to keep using the scary eugenics word... While this small group of serial baby mamas and daddies keep having and neglecting young children. And receiving ever more money from you to do so.
And yes you will shoving food into the "gravy train" because most humans are more like Moose than you. They are unwilling to let 10 Americans die while you work to teach one of them to fish.
And finally, of course the government can create and protect wealth by using tax dollars wisely. I mean our country would be a pretty sad place without public investment in infrastructure, defense, schools, law, order, etc. And even some form of welfare is necessary to protect our wealth, capitalism just isn't perfect and the "losers" need a bit of a cushion or we would be dealing with more rebellion crime and strife.
I know this will be hard for you to swallow, but you only have wealth because of our government. It is the system that maintains your ownership rights and bind them in law.
As I said above...
Somewhere between these extremes there must be a better solution.
"They are unwilling to let 10 Americans die while you work to teach one of them to fish."
I call BS. They are "unwilling" because:
-- they have been told that compassion dictates this massive welfare state.
-- they are told charity isn't adequate
-- they have been told these people are absolutely desperate for aid
-- they have been told these people are utterly incapable of doing anything for themselves
-- they are told somebody else is paying
-- they have no grasp of basic economics, which says that government "has its own money" to spend on these things, rather than taking it out of the economy.
-- they have no idea of the magnitude of this problem
-- no one has told them how grossly inefficient the system is, in both economic and human terms.
-- they are told that conservatives want forced sterilizations or changes that would have people "dying in the streets." That is, reform is not possible
-- they have been told these expenditures are an "investment" but never how little is simply lost rather than building "human capital" that creates a return.
-- AND "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" -- Ronald Reagan
Government cannot create wealth. It can convert (somebody else's) wealth into capital goods (roads, education) and it is formed to protect wealth-- property, security-- but beyond that its expenses must detract from the economy and wealth-building.
Capitalism is NOT perfect, true. It creates the unequal sharing of wealth. Socialism creates the equal sharing of misery. Isn't our welfare system basically socialist?
And by the way, in places where I am "teaching people to fish," NOBODY knows how to fish, and nobody is going around handing out free fish.
Jerry,
This is America. You are allowed your opinions, as is Moose.
Thankfully most of us want a support system somewhere between his welfare state and your charity only state.
Just as most of us want a mixed economy... Not perfect capitalism or socialism.
Agreed. Why deal in absolutes at either end when they are less desirable than what is in the middle? Let's kill Moose's extreme welfare state, substitute a government system that offers a means of building human capital-- that is, sustaining life and health while becoming productive citizens-- similar to what private charities do now, and augmented by private charity for those at the margins.
The problem is that nobody wants to hear of the better way because government "has it handled."
Jerry,
I'll let the Liberals reply to that statement...
Post a Comment