99 Weeks Later, Jobless Have Only Desperation

[Ocean52680]

I said from a budget balance perspective. Tax increases would generally increase revenue, unless you can show that it would decrease economic activity enough that it would actually cause a decrease in revenue that an increase in the tax rate cannot make up.

One can still balance the budget by increasing taxes and increasing spending by that proportional amount. This is one of the reasons why PAYGO is a sham.

 

[Black_Rose]

One can still balance the budget by increasing taxes and increasing spending by that proportional amount. This is one of the reasons why PAYGO is a sham.

How is it a sham? It does what it proclaims it does, keeping the budget balanced by increasing/decreasing taxes proportional to the amount of spending. It seems like the word “sham” is used by people with an ideological dislike towards higher taxes.

 

[Ocean52680]

How is it a sham? It does what it proclaims it does, keeping the budget balanced by increasing/decreasing taxes proportional to the amount of spending. It seems like the word “sham” is used by people with an ideological dislike towards higher taxes.

Yes, I dislike higher taxes (as should everyone).

That being said, it’s still a sham. PAYGO allows Congress to spend…offset with higher taxes…spend more…offset with higher taxes…(you get the point). As a result, there is no real check on government spending or higher taxes.

In addition:

Did you know that PAYGO only applies to mandatory spending increases that result from a change in current law? It is also not applied to discretionary spending, emergency spending and supplementals. Finally, PAYGO does not require offsets for automatic spending increases built into entitlement programs.

On the contrary, the rule never “does what it proclaims it does”.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Hmph, I just read a liberal accusing a conservative of being pro-deficit.

What is this world coming to. I once had hope, but now I know for sure that our education system is a failure.

Obama would never extend the Bush tax cuts, simply because everyone would continue to call them the Bush tax cuts.

Now, if they were called the Obama tax cuts, why he would be more than happy to. If not just to get re-elected.

Same reason they just passed the 600 million dollar border security bill. Yay, it’s election time everyone!! The politicians are pandering!! Get some while the gettins good!!

 

[Good_News_1]

Hmph, I just read a liberal

What liberal did that?

accusing a conservative of being pro-deficit.

Extending a tax cut of as much as three trillion dollars without paying for it is, objectively, pro-deficit. And you are correct, no one who would support such at thing could be considered “conservative.”

Same reason they just passed the 600 million dollar border security bill.

You’re against the border security bill? It is, theoretically, paid for, mostly by raising visa fees. I think that a more courageous choice would be to raise general taxes for border security, rather than penalize those who playing by the rules in the immigration system. But, it was bi-partisan and fiscally responsible, a great rarity, and a pleasant surprise.

 

[Black_Rose]

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Your quote was about private charity.

Matthew 25 can also apply to a welfare state because essential a welfare state serves those functions on a public instead of a private level. If one pays taxes to a welfare state, and does so cheerfully, one can regard them doing a loving, charitable act, but if one does it reluctantly then the act of financially supporting the welfare state would be devoid of any virtue.

I would prefer a welfare state to private charity, simply because the former is more effective. Personally, private charity gets me dejected because I am often too tough on myself; resentful that my meager charitable acts do not have much measurable impact on the world. I would gladly be relieved of my personal “responsibility” of providing for the poor domestically, since it is a source of frustration due to my personal inefficacy, while welcoming it as a collective burden. When living in an extensive welfare state, my moral responsibilities have not completely evaporated, I would still have the burden of not only financially supporting the state, but I also would have to fervently commit my intellect to relentless defending the system and treating my fellow citizens with respect, amity, and friendship while not being judgmental on the unfortunate. I must never castigate a fellow citizen who is suffering from misfortune for an alleged lack of “personal responsibility” nor harbor any prejudice about him/her being lazy from self-righteous condescending attitude, instead I would be expected to cheerfully extend an attitude of sympathy and benevolence along with financial support through the apparatus of the state, to him or her. But I would expect my fellow citizens to reciprocate the same attitude, with the assistance of a repressive culture and inculcation, towards me and other citizens, and share the same concern for their welfare too.

 

[CatholicGerman]

I would prefer a welfare state to private charity, simply because the former is more effective.

Really? Has a private charity ever been provided with the massive funds, legal and political power of a welfare state? In the areas where private charity competes directly with public welfare, charity is usually more efficient. Furthermore, public welfare tends to be seen as an entitlement and a stable source of income.

Although, it’s a bit facetious for two women like us to be discussing this. Really, the men should be deciding, since they’re the ones paying most of the taxes. Unfortunately for them, we hold most of the votes.

 

[Ocean52680]

Matthew 25 can also apply to a welfare state because essential a welfare state serves those functions on a public instead of a private level. If one pays taxes to a welfare state, and does so cheerfully, one can regard them doing a loving, charitable act, but if one does it reluctantly then the act of financially supporting the welfare state would be devoid of any virtue.

I would prefer a welfare state to private charity, simply because the former is more effective. Personally, private charity gets me dejected because I am often too tough on myself; resentful that my meager charitable acts do not have much measurable impact on the world. I would gladly be relieved of my personal “responsibility” of providing for the poor domestically, since it is a source of frustration due to my personal inefficacy, while welcoming it as a collective burden. When living in an extensive welfare state, my moral responsibilities have not completely evaporated, I would still have the burden of not only financially supporting the state, but I also would have to fervently commit my intellect to relentless defending the system and treating my fellow citizens with respect, amity, and friendship while not being judgmental on the unfortunate. I must never castigate a fellow citizen who is suffering from misfortune for an alleged lack of “personal responsibility” nor harbor any prejudice about him/her being lazy from self-righteous condescending attitude, instead I would be expected to cheerfully extend an attitude of sympathy and benevolence along with financial support through the apparatus of the state, to him or her. But I would expect my fellow citizens to reciprocate the same attitude, with the assistance of a repressive culture and inculcation, towards me and other citizens, and share the same concern for their welfare too.

This rant is truly disturbing. In the end, your philosophy on the welfare state grows out of the barrel of a gun (even under the best of intentions). And there’s nothing charitable or Christian about that.

 

[CatholicGerman]

This rant is truly disturbing. In the end, your philosophy on the welfare state grows out of the barrel of a gun. And there’s nothing charitable or Christian about that.

Naw… she was just telling us all about her feelings. That’s important, because women vote according to their feelings. That, and how -]hot/-] charismatic the politician is.

It’s not really our fault, though. Men were stupid enough to enfranchise us in the first place.

 

[Ocean52680]

Naw… she was just telling us all about her feelings. That’s important, because women vote according to their feelings. That, and how -]hot/-] charismatic the politician is.

It’s not really our fault, though. Men were stupid enough to enfranchise us in the first place.

I really do not understand how one can put so much trust in government. Empowering the welfare state to such a degree inevitably leads confiscation and redistribution by deadly force. Government is not my God and I certainly refuse to be submissive to it.

By the way, my mother feels the same way!

 

[CatholicGerman]

Government is not my God and I certainly refuse to be submissive to it.

Ah… you understand then. In Germany, they call the state Vater Staat (Father State).

Women love the state because it’s like a husband. Except that it’s more reliable, much wealthier, and it doesn’t leave its socks on the floor, or pester you in bed. And you can be a polygamist: you can marry the state and then sleep with whomever pleases you at the moment. If you marry a real-life man, than he will generally throw a fit if you try that in his home.

So when you give women the vote, they vote for the state to take as much money as possible away from men, and give it to the women. Then the women are “independent” and can sleep with that hot guy from work.

 

[Good_News_1]

Empowering the welfare state to such a degree inevitably leads confiscation and redistribution by deadly force.

Really? What government started a welfare state, and then inevitably and slowly became totalitarian?

Russia? They had a revolution, then took over Eastern Europe, and spread to Asia, all through violent revoltion or invasion. Nazi Germany? A radical political party took over. China? They had a revolution too.

So, what is the example of this inevitable totalitarianism that begins with social welfare programs?

Government is not my God

I don’t see anyone clamoring for theocracy.

 

[Ocean52680]

Really? What government started a welfare state, and then inevitably and slowly became totalitarian?

Russia? They had a revolution, then took over Eastern Europe, and spread to Asia, all through violent revoltion or invasion. Nazi Germany? A radical political party took over. China? They had a revolution too.

So, what is the example of this inevitable totalitarianism that begins with social welfare programs?

Again, I said “empowering the welfare state to such a degree”. I stand by my point. The welfare state’s obsession with equality of outcomes has a tendency to breed radicalism, revolution, and mass murder.

By the way, I would include France in your list as well.

I don’t see anyone clamoring for theocracy.

I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated a theocracy in any of my posts on this website. I am satisfied with our republican form of government. However, I thoroughly object to worshiping at the alter of the welfare state.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I’d say Chavez is driving down that road.

 

[Black_Rose]

Really? Has a private charity ever been provided with the massive funds, legal and political power of a welfare state? In the areas where private charity competes directly with public welfare, charity is usually more efficient.

I carefully used the word “effective” not “efficient”. It is not inherently contradictory to state that welfare state are effective while charities are more efficient, since “effective” and “efficient” and “effective” have two different, but somewhat similar, meanings. The welfare state is more effective simply because of the funds it has access to, relative to most private charities. But this begs the question why charities do not have access to that kind of money. A charity may be more efficient, in the sense that it can extract more “utility” per unit of financial resources it expends than a welfare state.

Furthermore, public welfare tends to be seen as an entitlement and a stable source of income.

Perhaps, the is exactly the point of the welfare state, to minimize any downward volatility in one’s personal life, which would be analogous, in the language of finance, to maximizing the Sortino ratio of a financial investment.

 

[Good_News_1]

Again, I said “empowering the welfare state to such a degree”. I stand by my point. The welfare state’s obsession with equality of outcomes has a tendency to breed radicalism, revolution, and mass murder.

But doesn’t that come, historically, from revolution, not evolution?

I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated a theocracy

Sure, and I’m not sure that government is anyone else’s God.

 

[CatholicGerman]

The welfare state is more effective simply because of the funds it has access to, relative to most private charities.

Hmm… Since you are effectively voting for a system you will not have to pay for, I think you can then hardly consider it virtuous of yourself to have voted for it. Welfare seems like a better deal to you, and the majority of women and the poor, because charity is something that would come out of your own wallet. It’s getting something for nothing, which always sounds better than the alternative.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Perhaps, the is exactly the point of the welfare state, to minimize any downward volatility in -]one’s /-] a woman’s personal life, which would be analogous, in the language of finance, to maximizing the Sortino ratio of a financial investment.

Fixed it. Or are you going to claim that men make up a significant portion of welfare recipients? The only thing men get the majority of is unemployment payments, which is an insurance scheme, and the only welfare program that didn’t (until now) lead to dependency upon the state or the breakdown of the family.

Welfare pays women to fornicate and divorce. Allow me to surpress my enthusiasm for it.

 

[Good_News_1]

I carefully used the word “effective” not “efficient”. It is not inherently contradictory to state that welfare state are effective while charities are more efficient, since they have two different, but somewhat similar, meanings. The welfare state is more effective simply because of the funds it has access to, relative to most private charities. A charity may be more efficient, in the sense that it can extract more “utility” per unit of financial resources it expends than a welfare state.

I’m not sure if there is a point in comparing the two. I was, for a decade, on the board of a private mental health organization, which was publicly and privately funded, and operated, among other things, a psychiatric hospital. We could compete with other private charities for money for children’s programs and even domestic violence programs, but it was impossible to raise money in sufficient quantities to run a psychiatric hospital full of people who did dangerous and unsympathetic things (like hear voices, live on the street, and stab people). The psychiatric hospital needed public money. One result of depending on public money was that we were subject to all sorts of perverse incentives and mandates that didn’t fit our mission or community, but were politically driven. But one great benefit to having public money fund that particular function was that, in economic downturns, revenue from the hospital increased (because of cities being magnets for marginally attached people and people having more breakdowns in hard times). Our private funding decreased. Because we always sought both, we were remarkably stable financially (we were nonprofit, in every sense - we all paid to be on the board).

Private money has a bias to drift towards children and puppies, which is why many public charities need government money. But public money can carry costs that will lead to horrible decisions in the administration of services, or silly and wasteful gambits to fit a program into an otherwise inappropriate funding category. But there absolutely needs to be both, and comparing the two as if they were truly equal or comparable alternatives in the real world isn’t valid.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Well said Good News, and I agree. But the balance is very difficult to achieve.

A basic welfare system is part of the societal contract, but what we have today goes way beyond that. Just look at the massive child support system for never-married mothers. Talk about a perverse incentive.