Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Good_News_1]

When government benefits become more costly, a worker becomes more frugal with money and more careful about ringing up unaffordable debt.

Of course: the problem with government is that it is in the control of the poor and lower middle class.

 

[bbarrick8383]

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

 

[Ocean52680]

Fortunately most Americans disagree with the values of the seemingly majority here. Which makes the views of the majority here actually the minority view.

"Researchers found that, across income and ideological groups, people both underestimated how much money is in the hands of the richest and expressed a belief that wealth should be distributed more fairly.

newser.com/story/101370/most-americans-think-rich-are-too-rich.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newserakes

Should I be shocked that people covet their neighbor’s goods? Many people desire someone else’s husband or wife too.

Advocates for income/wealth redistribution are no different. They seek to solve the selfish sins of man through theft.

 

[Ocean52680]

Of course: the problem with government is that it is in the control of the poor and lower middle class.

1. When the cost of a good or service is artificially low, the demand for that good or service will increase.
2. Excessive demand eventually creates a shortage - this is current stage of the welfare state in the USA.
3. Finally, the good or service is rationed - this is current stage of the welfare state in Europe.

Basic economics.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Should I be shocked that people covet their neighbor’s goods? Many people desire someone else’s husband or wife too.

Advocates for income/wealth redistribution are no different. They seek to solve the selfish sins of man through theft.

Maybe they can solve the problem of out of wedlock marriages by forcing people to get and stay married.

Maybe we can solve the problem of obesity by confiscating all of the Cheetos and ice cream.

Maybe we can solve the problem of opulence by only allowing Smart forTwos to be sold in the world.

Lets take away choice and options. We will let some anonymous bureaucrat decide what is best for everyone. Oh wait, that is what they did in the Soviet Union, and Cuba, and many parts of China. We will take away people’s liberty for the sake of the common good. Then noone will live better than anyone else (well exept the politicians, because they deserve it) we will all live in cookie cutter homes, eat the same food, watch the same TV channels, punch in, punch out, go to bed, wake up, repeat until you die.

Sounds like Hell on earth to me.

 

[Ocean52680]

Sounds like Hell on earth to me.

I agree.

 

[estesbob]

Should I be shocked that people covet their neighbor’s goods? Many people desire someone else’s husband or wife too.

Advocates for income/wealth redistribution are no different. They seek to solve the selfish sins of man through theft.

I’m always surprised at the number of people who want to show compassion by using my money.

 

[Good_News_1]

Advocates for income/wealth redistribution are no different. They seek to solve the selfish sins of man through theft.

Right, because you can the minds of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

Perhaps progressive taxation is a sensible policy. Perhaps that’s why the entire industrialized world has a progressive tax. Isn’t it funny, that with all this avarice from the evil poor, the upper classes and weathy are doing as well, comparatively, as they ever have? The entire world is engaged in this massive “theft” - and yet the world goes on, fortunes are made and lost, technology moves forward. The disconnect between libertarian rhetoric and any real world situation is vast.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Right, because you can the minds of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

Perhaps progressive taxation is a sensible policy. Perhaps that’s why the entire industrialized world has a progressive tax. Isn’t it funny, that with all this avarice from the evil poor, the upper classes and weathy are doing as well, comparatively, as they ever have? The entire world is engaged in this massive “theft” - and yet the world goes on, fortunes are made and lost, technology moves forward. The disconnect between libertarian rhetoric and any real world situation is vast.

That is because Keynesian economics and Progressive wealth redistribution are both scams designed to keep the powerful in power, the rich in their mansions, and the rest of us grovelling and begging for scraps. Welcome to the show.

 

[Good_News_1]

1. When the cost of a good or service is artificially low, the demand for that good or service will increase.

There isn’t a fee for services model for government. Period.

I’m glad I could clear that up for you.

Accordingly, voting for spending, and voting for tax cuts, aren’t subject to “basic economics.” Instead, they are subject to the various sociological forces of the political system. If you want to contend that things would be different if the government were fee for service, and hence would fit into a free market model, fine, but it’s not a particularly relevant point. There won’t be a fee for service model for government in our lifetimes, the idea is impractical in the extreme, and it isn’t even a good analogy for the operation of government. Suggesting that the incentives behind taxation can be explained by “basic economics” is a waste of bandwith.

Government programs aren’t devised by the poor, nor are they devised by the middle class. They are devised by the governing class, which is largely upper income, working in various areas of academia, think tanks, and then promoted by interest groups, unions, and corporations, and sold to the mass of voters through routine advertising methods- not driven by some sort of quasi-consumer demand.

 

[Good_News_1]

That is because Keynesian economics and Progressive wealth redistribution are both scams designed to keep the powerful in power, the rich in their mansions, and the rest of us grovelling and begging for scraps. Welcome to the show.

I’m distressed to hear you’ve been begging for scraps. You’re welcome to come to my mansion anytime and I’ll have the cook fix you something nice.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I accept that we have different opinions about progressive taxation. However, manipulating the teachings of Christ in order to defend the confiscation of income by force is wrong.

That’s nothing. You should have read the one about how Jesus not specifically condemning abortion make abortion A-OK!!

 

[Ocean52680]

There isn’t a fee for services model for government. Period.

I’m glad I could clear that up for you.

Accordingly, voting for spending, and voting for tax cuts, aren’t subject to “basic economics.” Instead, they are subject to the various sociological forces of the political system. If you want to contend that things would be different if the government were fee for service, and hence would fit into a free market model, fine, but it’s not a particularly relevant point. There won’t be a fee for service model for government in our lifetimes, the idea is impractical in the extreme, and it isn’t even a good analogy for the operation of government. Suggesting that the incentives behind taxation can be explained by “basic economics” is a waste of bandwith.

Government programs aren’t devised by the poor, nor are they devised by the middle class. They are devised by the governing class, which is largely upper income, working in various areas of academia, think tanks, and then promoted by interest groups, unions, and corporations, and sold to the mass of voters like any other commercial commodity - not driven by some sort of quasi-consumer demand.

I wasn’t making a fee for service argument or advocating a fee for service government. But go ahead and kick the straw man.

I’m addressing the demand for government, in particular the welfare state. When the cost of the welfare state is shifted to a select few, the demand for the welfare state grows. It is impossible to prevent the welfare state from growing insolvent if a near majority of workers do not share in the burden of its costs. Politics and economics do intersect. A voter free from paying his share of the cost of the welfare state has little interest in controlling tax increases or reducing the size of government. I’m glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’m always surprised at the number of people who want to show compassion by using my money.

Please send me $100. There’s a special collection this week and I’m feeling mighty generous!

 

[estesbob]

That’s nothing. You should have read the one about how Jesus not specifically condemning abortion make abortion A-OK!!

When attempting to defend the indefensible people come up with all sorts of wild rationalizations.!

 

[CMatt25]

Should I be shocked that people covet their neighbor’s goods? Many people desire someone else’s husband or wife too.

Advocates for income/wealth redistribution are no different. They seek to solve the selfish sins of man through theft.

No. We seek people who actually understand the difference between taxes and theft.

For my fellow Catholic friends who profess a fuller allegiance.

From CCC 2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes… Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due

And maybe you can also learn a few things here about how a person who claims taxes constitute "theft"and says the state may not redistribute income, contradicts Aquinas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

catholicity.com/commentary/pavlat/04276.html

See what I am shocked about is how Christians can say individuals, the Church, and private sector alone can achieve Christ’s mission to serve the poor, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick when they have been unable to do so alone in over 2000 yrs. Open your eyes and look around. Yet they reject any role whatsoever for the government to help in this effort. I see the Church so focused on issues like abortion, gays, and stem cells. And I am sorry but I can’t help but wonder sometimes where are the social justice Gospel values, not of Glenn Beck, but of Jesus Christ in all of this? It saddens me greatly.

But God bless us all and peace.

 

[Good_News_1]

I wasn’t making a fee for service argument or advocating a fee for service government

If you were not, then applying “basic economics” makes no sense.

I’m addressing the demand for government, in particular the welfare state. When the cost of the welfare state is shifted to a select few, the demand for the welfare state grows.

Again, the welfare state isn’t a supply/demand model. We don’t have more food stamps used now because poor people got together and lobbied for them. The number of people on food stamps rises and falls with the economy, and the poor have almost no direct imput into setting the requirements of the program.

A voter free from paying his share of the cost of the welfare state has little interest in controlling tax increases or reducing the size of government.

Obviously not, but it’s a useless point, since welfare is based on need. If the needy could pay for welfare, they wouldn’t be needy.

I suppose that I’ll have to register my agreement that if the poor were required to buy their food stamps, there would be no food stamps. I’m sure that advanced your argument somehow, though I’m not sure how.

 

[CMatt25]

That’s nothing. You should have read the one about how Jesus not specifically condemning abortion make abortion A-OK!!

Interesting. I do recall discussion about Jesus never mentioning the word abortion. I recall discussion about plural beliefs in a democracy as to what occurs at the moment of conception. I recall discussion on striving to make abortion rare. But :tsktsk: you really shouldn’t bear false witness. No one in those discussions said a thing about “A-OK!!”.

 

[Ocean52680]

Right, because you can the minds of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

Perhaps progressive taxation is a sensible policy. Perhaps that’s why the entire industrialized world has a progressive tax. Isn’t it funny, that with all this avarice from the evil poor, the upper classes and weathy are doing as well, comparatively, as they ever have? The entire world is engaged in this massive “theft” - and yet the world goes on, fortunes are made and lost, technology moves forward. The disconnect between libertarian rhetoric and any real world situation is vast.

I’m not a libertarian. I am simply getting to the origin of progressive taxation. The world is full of “permissive” activities. And after engaging in such activities, the vast majority will find a justification to continue.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

What I would prefer is the Democrats drop their talking point about the Republicans wanting to keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaireswhen what we are actually talking about taxing people who are solidly middle-class

Wow…are you saying an income of $250,000 is middle class???