Is fiscal conservatism not Christian?

[ribozyme]

Not all taxation is stealing, certainly. We should pay via taxes the money the government needs to function. The government doesn’t need the money that supplies welfare, they just take it from one person and give it to another. To put it more specifically, they forcibly take it from one person without consent to give it to another who hasn’t earned it. This is why I think it is stealing on a grand scale.

So how will the means to provide for the poor when charity will not suffice? For example, private charity is not enough to feed the hungry in the United States: cbpp.org/foodstamp-video.htm . I suppose you are definately content with the notion of the poor suffering when they wealthy have the property and social status defended by the government… But you are not motivated by an utilitarian notion of alleviating human suffering. But of course, it is better for the poor to starve to death or freeze to death than to violate the rich man’s income.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So how will the means to provide for the poor when charity will not suffice? For example, private charity is not enough to feed the hungry in the United States: cbpp.org/foodstamp-video.htm . I suppose you are definately content with the notion of the poor suffering when they wealthy have the property and social status defended by the government… But you are not motivated by an utilitarian notion of alleviating human suffering. But of course, it is better for the poor to starve to death or freeze to death than to violate the rich man’s income.

Actually, if the government would do its duty and educate the children, instead of tolerating a 30% high school dropout rate nationwide and a 50% average rate in our 50 largest cities, private charity could do very well, since the poverty rate would be much lower than it is.

Next, government “charity” has produced housing “projects,” high rates of crime, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancy and single parent families.

 

[bogeydogg]

Where does this idea come from that it is unfair that some succeed and some fail? I have worked in many projects and I can tell you first hand that a lot (notice I did not say all or even most) of the people, while they are poor, do not lack for cigarettes, alcohol and the rent to own TV in living room, so I have a somewhat difficult time feeling bad for them. I am the sole supporter of my family and my wife and I have given up a great deal of things in order to provide our children with a good life as best as we can. We are middle class but we don’t have payments for two cars in the driveway, and while we do own a house, we do not own the biggest house we could possibly get because we decided to not mortgage ourselves to hilt in order to chase a fictitious notion of the American Dream. I do not have any college education because my family could not afford it, but I work construction and I make a good enough living which, the Lord willing, I will for some time. Everything I have I have worked very hard for and resent someone telling me that I am supposed to feel sorry for folks living in bad neighborhoods because I grew up in one. Full of drugs and violence and kids going to jail and committing violent crimes against each other and yet, somehow, I got out.

Of course I have compassion for those in bad situations, but I do not feel it is right for the government to take my wages and give them to people who are asleep a two in the afternoon when I show up to hook up their phones and asking me how they can get on with the phone company. I do not apologize for not feeling sorry for able bodied people who are lazy.

We should help those who need help, but not everybody who claims to need help actually does and we should try to figure out who those folks are because what is not fair is that my hard earned wages should go to someone who does nothing but milk the system. And yeah there are lots of folks out there who do, I grew up with a lot of them.

 

[Caesar517]

So how will the means to provide for the poor when charity will not suffice? For example, private charity is not enough to feed the hungry in the United States: cbpp.org/foodstamp-video.htm .

Do you think charity could do more if the government would stop taking more money than it needs to function. I do.

I suppose you are definately content with the notion of the poor suffering when they wealthy have the property and social status defended by the government.

I am not content with the idea of suffering. I think it is the moral duty of those who have plenty to help those who do not have enough. I do not think it is the role of government to ensure that we all have the same, no matter how hard a person works.

But you are not motivated by an utilitarian notion of alleviating human suffering.

I am not motivated by a utilitarian notion of anything. Is this the definition of utilitarian you go by? It sounds un-christian by this definition.

But of course, it is better for the poor to starve to death or freeze to death than to violate the rich man’s income.

I never want to see anyone die. But I think it is ok for one person to be more sucessful than someone else.

When a wealthy person chooses to donate, it is a beautiful thing. If you force him to donate, you lose that. Taking care of those who are less fortunate than you gains you grace, but it is the choice to do so that gains you grace. I think it is very bad to deny a person that opportunity.

 

[seekerz]

I hate it how the poor seem to get lumped together in these threads as underachievers who won’t work hard for a living.

But for the grace of God, many of us are just one calamity away from poverty. Not all poverty is in the projects and not all people in the projects are poor by any standard definition of the word.

It is this harsh judgemental attitude which makes me firmly in favor of government using taxes to help the poor. Definitely there are loopholes that need to be closed, certainly the money can be used more wisely or efficiently to lift people up rather than foster a life of dependence. Maybe the whole system needs to be overhauled!

Still, every civilized society in modern times has understood the need to alleviate poverty, not just for the sake of poor people but for the sake of society at large.

Maybe I read the wrong books, but it seems to me that the period of history when charity was the poor man’s main relief is rife with accounts of not-so-stellar treatment of the needy by those more blessed.

God forbid I should ever find myself in need and have my eligibility for assistance be decided by those who think poverty is a choice that lazy people make.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I hate it how the poor seem to get lumped together in these threads as underachievers who won’t work hard for a living.

You are reading into other people’s posts and seeing things that are not there. Let me summarize:

1. Christ demands we give of ourselves. When we give, we gain merit and grace. We cannot meet His commandment by pushing for government programs where someone else gives.
2. Not all of us work up to our potential, or anything like it. As I have said, I have seen many posts that say “someone else should give more,” but have never seen a post that said, “I must work harder so I can bear my share of the load.”
3. Government programs, aside from being terribly inefficient, are often counter-productive. I have cited the sudden halt to the drop in the poverty rate when the Great Society took effect, and the concomitant increase in drug abuse, crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and single parent homes.
4. The sole Social Justice program run by government, the Public School System, has failed miserably, with the 50 largest cities having an averate dropout rate of 50%, and a nation-wide dropout rate of about 30%.

 

[EphelDuath]

1. Christ demands we give of ourselves. When we give, we gain merit and grace. We cannot meet His commandment by pushing for government programs where someone else gives.

Question: does this imply that a society with no charities but no poor people would be less Christly than a society with lots of charities but still a large burden of poverty?

My point being, if I was living on the street, I would take aid in any form, whether it was by charity or government provisions. Our main concern is to help the poor, and if there’s sufficient reason to believe that tax distribution is more helpful to the lower classes than personal donations, we should aim towards the former, even if it means a little less freedom.

1. Government programs, aside from being terribly inefficient, are often counter-productive. I have cited the sudden halt to the drop in the poverty rate when the Great Society took effect, and the concomitant increase in drug abuse, crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and single parent homes.

There is also evidence to suggest that welfare states are very effective.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_poverty

(Yes, I realize Wikipedia is a somewhat unreliable source, however the chart that I am referencing is backed by two separate sources.)

1. The sole Social Justice program run by government, the Public School System, has failed miserably, with the 50 largest cities having an averate dropout rate of 50%, and a nation-wide dropout rate of about 30%.

That’s unique to the United States. Many European countries with large welfare states have much better education systems.

Regardless, that certainly doesn’t mean that government-based social aid doesn’t work. That just means that this one specific program is off-base.

I emphasize that I intend no hostility in this thread, I am merely questioning the basis for less government aid. We are both faithful Christians and want the same thing.

 

[BlaineTog]

Monopolies are created by goverment.

Because it’s impossible for a company to do so well and to be so aggressive that they end up with no competition, and once that happens, it is equally impossible for them to aggressively protect their market share by destroying anyone who tries to cut into it?

 

[Caesar517]

Because it’s impossible for a company to do so well and to be so aggressive that they end up with no competition, and once that happens, it is equally impossible for them to aggressively protect their market share by destroying anyone who tries to cut into it?

In a truly free market, there is always room for competition and no company can last forever. There is always room for someone to stand up and say, “Hey, I’ve got an idea!” There are many government regulations that make it difficult for small businesses. The only thing powerful enough to keep a business running indefinately and keep others from doing the same thing more efficiently is the government.

 

[BlaineTog]

In a truly free market, there is always room for competition and no company can last forever.

Yes, but a market is only as free as the big boys with the power allow it to be. Whether that’s the government or a corporation not above hostile takeovers, sabotage, or things even more illicit is beside the point.

There is always room for someone to stand up and say, “Hey, I’ve got an idea!”

They can stand up all they want, but that isn’t going to stop them for getting mowed down.

There are many government regulations that make it difficult for small businesses.

Irrelevant. That fact that the government isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be involved at all.

The only thing powerful enough to keep a business running indefinately and keep others from doing the same thing more efficiently is the government.

Or a multi-billion dollar corporation, which will be run much more efficiently and ruthlessly than any ol’ government.

 

[Caesar517]

Yes, but a market is only as free as the big boys with the power allow it to be. Whether that’s the government or a corporation not above hostile takeovers, sabotage, or things even more illicit is beside the point.

Corporations do not have the power to over tax, forcibly shut down, or imprison a small business. Only a government can limit the freedom of a free market.

If a very large corporation does do illicit things to shut down other businesses, then they are corrupt. Corrupt things do not stand on their own for long.

They can stand up all they want, but that isn’t going to stop them for getting mowed down.

Some are sucessful, some aren’t. Only the strong survive.

 

[BlaineTog]

Corporations do not have the power to over tax, forcibly shut down, or imprison a small business.

Parlor tricks.

Some are sucessful, some aren’t. Only the strong survive.

Isn’t that what I said?

 

[Caesar517]

Parlor tricks.

What do you mean by that? I think it’s more than a parlor trick when the government interferes with someone’s business.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that the government has the power to regulate the economy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Question: does this imply that a society with no charities but no poor people would be less Christly than a society with lots of charities but still a large burden of poverty?

Find me a society with no poor (remembering that Jesus told us we will always have poor) and we’ll examine it.

My point being, if I was living on the street, I would take aid in any form, whether it was by charity or government provisions. Our main concern is to help the poor, and if there’s sufficient reason to believe that tax distribution is more helpful to the lower classes than personal donations, we should aim towards the former, even if it means a little less freedom.

I suppose if some peoploe were desperate enough, they would steal, or even kill. But does that make stealing and killing the right way to live?

There is also evidence to suggest that welfare states are very effective.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_poverty

(Yes, I realize Wikipedia is a somewhat unreliable source, however the chart that I am referencing is backed by two separate sources.)

I agree that Wikipedia is “somewhat unreliable” and the articles are often written to “prove” a point.

I also know that many countries jimmy statistics – for example, in a debate on this very board, an English poster claimed England was 95% literate. I checked, and sure enough, they are – but they define “literate” as “having attended five or more years of school.”

That’s unique to the United States. Many European countries with large welfare states have much better education systems.

Regardless, that certainly doesn’t mean that government-based social aid doesn’t work. That just means that this one specific program is off-base.

I have pointed out many times that when the Great Society kicked in, poverty – which had been dropping like a stone – leveled off and has remained level at 13% (give or take two points) for almost 40 years.

At the same time, we saw dramatic increases in crime, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and single-parent households.

I emphasize that I intend no hostility in this thread, I am merely questioning the basis for less government aid. We are both faithful Christians and want the same thing.

My question is, is this same thing we want process-oriented, or product-oriented?

That is, do we insist on following a formula, regardless of whether it works or not, or do we demand results? If the latter, we must examine the results we have got to date to see if our formula is working. And when we do that, we find it is not only not working, but is counterproductive.

 

[ribozyme]

Find me a society with no poor (remembering that Jesus told us we will always have poor) and we’ll examine it.

Sweden is a society that has a lower percentage of poverty than the United States.

 

[Caesar517]

ribozyme, you didn’t answer my question. You have said that your befiefs are utilitarian. Is this definition accurate?

As a Catholic, I believe that the ends do not justify the means. If you believe that the ends do justify the means, we will never agree an most moral issues.

 

[BlaineTog]

What do you mean by that?

That powerful as the government may be, there are plenty of ways to sink a business available to big business.

I think it’s more than a parlor trick when the government interferes with someone’s business.

We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. I haven’t said a single word about government involvement with small businesses.

Sweden is a society that has a lower percentage of poverty than the United States.

“Lower” /= “None.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sweden is a society that has a lower percentage of poverty than the United States.

But they don’t have no poverty, now do they?

 

[ribozyme]

But they don’t have no poverty, now do they?

Well, we will use it as our test economy. Just use a Scandinavian country as an example.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, we will use it as our test economy. Just use a Scandinavian country as an example.

No, we will not use it as our “test economy.” We will have to find a larger country, with a more diverse population. Let’s use the United States as our “test economy.”

Now show us how the Great Society reduced poverty.