Poke holes in my Social Welfare Idea

[57classic]

The way you apply this truth to the social welfare question has a logic fault. While it is true that prayer for material help can sometimes bring about material help, you cannot assume that someone who does not seem to be getting material help is not praying for it, and trying for it on their own in every other way as well. But that is exactly the conclusion you would need to reach your point that those who are not achieving material success are somehow necessarily personally responsible for that failure to succeed, which allows you to justify denying social welfare in the first place.

OK, so poor people just need to abstain from sex. But that does not answer the question of why the poor should be considered less worthy to have children than the rich.

First, I don’t think that if government stepped out of the picture, charitable people would step in with an equal amount of help. To see that all you have to do is look at historical periods and even present day places where there is no government welfare. In none of those places and times has private charity ever provided the level of support that is anywhere near what government provides now.

Second, you just admitted that many people are waiting for government to step out of the picture before they will become more charitable. In other words, there aren’t enough poor people right now to encourage private charity. Since you obviously consider private charity a good and desirable thing, and the only way to achieve it is to create more poor people, you are essentially contradicting your first sentence where you said you did not want to make more people poor.

What is the point of that? That we should cut back on foreign missionaries, doctors and dentists so we could serve those in the US instead?

I am not bitter towards anyone, including the unfairly wealthy. But this is another example of the logic fault I mentioned about. Yes, there are many forms of prayer for material blessings, and it is always good to pray for our needs, both spiritual and temporal. But you cannot assume someone has not prayed just because they don’t seem to be getting richer.

I assume that you are implying that these 40% could get a job if they wanted to. Couldn’t it also be that they have given up because they know no one will hire them right now?

I know there are people, especially the elderly, the mentally and or physically handicapped who are vulnerable to poverty and for the love of God, it is up to us to help them.

Will you admit there are people who are quite happy to game the system by living off government benefits where they could earn a living but simply won’t?

I have heard the phrase, poor people have poor ways. How do you interpret that? Do you believe God just has it out for some? Do you not see that the person who has only a few dollars and spends them unwisely is perpetuating their problem? If I need nutritious food for the kids, I need to pay the rent and utilities and I buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, gamble, get a tattoo, spend it all on myself or buy candy and soda pop instead of nourishing food with the money I have, have I made a poor choice? Yes! Did I set a good example for the next generation? No! I have set an irresponsible, immature, selfish example. All I am asking is that responsible behavior be encouraged, even by negative pressure so that more people will regain their dignity and self respect and take care of themselves when they are able. If a person has to be frugal during their entire lifetime they have their honor, dignity and self respect. What is wrong with being frugal and responsible? Your replies to me sound as though it is a sin to want people to be responsible.

I did not ever assume the reason any person is poor is because they have not prayed. You are the one who insisted "God gives us the means to avoid sin and be with Him in heaven. That is all. "

What is your definition of unfairly wealthy? My definition is those who have made their money criminally or who pay immorally low wages to persons who have no recourse such as illegal aliens who cannot go to the law so are taken advantage of by employers. I do not consider wealth to be unfair just because it is inherited or because someone is smart in business or investing.

It is not the number of poor people that should stimulate private charity. All charity should be private in that it is not from the government, it is not it’s job and it doesn’t do it well. I also believe charity (love) begins at home, right here in this country, then go abroad. How can we show love in a foreign land when our own countrymen need to see this love of God? Apparently there are soooo many resources out there we can step around our own to take care of the world… while our own country falls apart?

I did not say the poor need to abstain from sex. You argue as though you are 12. If the only people having sex were married people that would be half the battle won right there.

Maybe the 40% should pray for a job:
I don’t have unlimited financial resources but I haven’t found a problem yet that doesn’t have a prayer with which to battle it. Try it. While you are at it, join me in praying all those who need a job.
prayerflowers.com/prayergarden/index.php?topic=837.msg4540#msg4540

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Will you admit there are people who are quite happy to game the system by living off government benefits where they could earn a living but simply won’t?

As I said before, I am not addressing that question until you explain how the answer to that question should affect the general question of having a social welfare system. Because if it doesn’t inform that question, then it doesn’t matter.

I have heard the phrase, poor people have poor ways. How do you interpret that?

Again you are asking me questions without explaining why those questions need to be answered in this thread.

Do you believe God just has it out for some?

If you mean that God grants some people the means to be materially successful and other he does not, then yes is my answer.

Do you not see that the person who has only a few dollars and spends them unwisely is perpetuating their problem? If I need nutritious food for the kids, I need to pay the rent and utilities and I buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, gamble, get a tattoo, spend it all on myself or buy candy and soda pop instead of nourishing food with the money I have, have I made a poor choice?

What is your point of these examples? If a social welfare system is designed properly, it should be difficult for someone to get assistance and immediately squander it in the way you describe. Of course I am not in favor of welfare that encourages that kind of abuse.

What is your definition of unfairly wealthy?

You used the term first. I merely quoted you. I don’t think I should have to define a term that you introduced into the conversation and about which I said nothing, other than to say I am not bitter toward them, whoever they are.

It is not the number of poor people that should stimulate private charity. All charity should be private in that it is not from the government, it is not it’s job and it doesn’t do it well.

That depends on what you mean by “well”. If you mean the number of people helped, it is quite clear that government has done that better than any private charity. If you mean well in the sense of not wasting anything, then private charity is better than government. So what is more important? To help more people, or to avoid wasting money?

I also believe charity (love) begins at home, right here in this country, then go abroad.

How do we know when charity at home is good enough to then go abroad? Given that those in foreign lands are generally in a worse state than anyone in the US, there should always be some consideration given to helping those most in need, even if someone who is only a little in need in this country maybe doesn’t get quite as much help. I always thought that the expression “Charity begins at home” too easily becomes “Charity ends at home.”

I did not say the poor need to abstain from sex.

Well, if you were more explicit about your suggestions I would not have to guess what you mean. You did say that the poor should not have more babies than they can provide for, and that they should do this with self control. I don’t know of anything else besides sex that controls having babies (excluding contraception).

If the only people having sex were married people that would be half the battle won right there.

I never said unmarried people have a right to have babies.

Maybe the 40% should pray for a job:
I don’t have unlimited financial resources but I haven’t found a problem yet that doesn’t have a prayer with which to battle it.

Have you seen the movie, “War Room”? I just saw a promo for it and it looks like it addresses this very issue in a positive light.

 

[stinkcat_14]

doesn’t there seem to be something a bit immoral about being able to vote yourself other people’s money?

Are you saying that social security recipients should be deprived of the right to vote? After all, they are the biggest welfare recipients by far.

 

[shockerfan]

Are you saying that social security recipients should be deprived of the right to vote? After all, they are the biggest welfare recipients by far.

I have addressed this in previous responses. No, I am not advocating citizens being deprived the right to vote, however, I am asking a moral question: Is it moral to vote yourself someone else’s money? (My previous posts will put this into more context)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have addressed this in previous responses. No, I am not advocating citizens being deprived the right to vote, however, I am asking a moral question: Is it moral to vote yourself someone else’s money? (My previous posts will put this into more context)

“Someone else’s money” implies the money presently belongs to this someone else. In the case of voting how to spend duly collected taxes, the money is no longer “owned” by those taxpayers who originally paid it, but it is owned by the society at large.

That addresses where the money is coming from. Now to address where it is going to. The implication of “vote yourself someone else’s money” is that the money is for your benefit and your benefit alone. In the case you are referring to - namely social welfare programs - the benefit is applied to a large class of people, of which the voter in question is just one beneficiary. If you happen to be one of those people, there is nothing immoral about your participating in that vote.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a small town is voting on whether to fund an airport expansion. Let’s say this is a small airstrip that serves mostly private pilots and has no passenger service. If this issue were put to a vote, would it be immoral for pilots who stand to benefit the most from the expansion to vote on this issue? It could be argued that this also would be a case of voting yourself someone else’s money.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I have addressed this in previous responses. No, I am not advocating citizens being deprived the right to vote, however, I am asking a moral question: Is it moral to vote yourself someone else’s money? (My previous posts will put this into more context)

So, did seniors have a moral obligation to object when Bush pushed for Medicare part D? Obviously, we rarely vote ourselves benefits directly. But unless you vote third party, you are stuck with two big government, welfare state parties.

 

[shockerfan]

“Someone else’s money” implies the money presently belongs to this someone else. In the case of voting how to spend duly collected taxes, the money is no longer “owned” by those taxpayers who originally paid it, but it is owned by the society at large.

That addresses where the money is coming from. Now to address where it is going to. The implication of “vote yourself someone else’s money” is that the money is for your benefit and your benefit alone. In the case you are referring to - namely social welfare programs - the benefit is applied to a large class of people, of which the voter in question is just one beneficiary. If you happen to be one of those people, there is nothing immoral about your participating in that vote.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a small town is voting on whether to fund an airport expansion. Let’s say this is a small airstrip that serves mostly private pilots and has no passenger service. If this issue were put to a vote, would it be immoral for pilots who stand to benefit the most from the expansion to vote on this issue? It could be argued that this also would be a case of voting yourself someone else’s money.

Not sure if you are intentionally playing word games or not. Here is the basis of my question: Lets say I currently pay 38% of my income in federal income taxes. Then lets say that Candidate X comes along and says we are going to provide “free” college to all Americans who have incomes below a certain amount. In order to “pay” for this “free” benefit, Candidate X proposes raising the top income tax rate only from 38% to 50% (which won’t cover the cost, but that never stopped a politician…different issue though). So Voter Y says “I would like free college, so I will vote for Candidate X, because I will get something for nothing”.

Now, if I follow your logic right, the extra 12% that I have to cough up, that I can no longer spend on my family, my bills, my retirement, etc., is really no longer my money, but “society’s money”. Did I get that right?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Not sure if you are intentionally playing word games or not. Here is the basis of my question: Lets say I currently pay 38% of my income in federal income taxes. Then lets say that Candidate X comes along and says we are going to provide “free” college to all Americans who have incomes below a certain amount. In order to “pay” for this “free” benefit, Candidate X proposes raising the top income tax rate only from 38% to 50% (which won’t cover the cost, but that never stopped a politician…different issue though). So Voter Y says “I would like free college, so I will vote for Candidate X, because I will get something for nothing”.

Now, if I follow your logic right, the extra 12% that I have to cough up, that I can no longer spend on my family, my bills, my retirement, etc., is really no longer my money, but “society’s money”. Did I get that right?

The other side is when people vote for a candidate who promises to cut taxes, knowing full well that the candidate has no intention of cutting spending to pay for those tax cuts, thus the tax cut will be paid for by future generations. I think the question is, is there a selfless voter out there? I don’t think so.

 

[shockerfan]

The other side is when people vote for a candidate who promises to cut taxes, knowing full well that the candidate has no intention of cutting spending to pay for those tax cuts, thus the tax cut will be paid for by future generations. I think the question is, is there a selfless voter out there? I don’t think so.

I get your point, I don’t necessarily agree with everything about it, but I get it (I really don’t want to go off on a new debate about “static” or “dynamic” analysis on the impact of tax cuts).

I do think you phrased your answer in an interesting way, which begs the question: If I keep more of my money and pay less in taxes, did it really “cost” anybody else anything? If it did, does all money ultimately belong to the government, and what ever we keep costs the government something?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I get your point, I don’t necessarily agree with everything about it, but I get it (I really don’t want to go off on a new debate about “static” or “dynamic” analysis on the impact of tax cuts).

I think you need a better understanding of economics. Even if we use a dynamic model it does not follow that a tax cut will pay for itself. While it is possible in some scenarios, that scenario has not existed for the past 20 years.

I do think you phrased your answer in an interesting way, which begs the question: If I keep more of my money and pay less in taxes, did it really “cost” anybody else anything?

You are arguing that nobody will have to pay off those government bonds? For example, if people benefit from national defense, should they have to pay for it, or is it fine to make our grandchildren pay for it? If you benefit from Social Security, is it fine to pass the cost of the program onto future generations? We cannot look at government spending and taxation as independent of one another.

If it did, does all money ultimately belong to the government, and what ever we keep costs the government something?

I never said all the money belongs to the government, but we live in a very liberal society where we define welfare programs as something other than welfare and pretend we are in favor of small government. So when someone promises to cut taxes, but not cut spending, that is no different than promising to give someone additional welfare benefits, such as medicare part D.

 

[shockerfan]

I think you need a better understanding of economics.

Not sure why you wrote this. Were you able to ascertain my complete knowledge of economics by the line I wrote? Or is it possible I made a general comment that was tangential to the discussion, and really didn’t want to spend the time to write a tome on the subject to allow you a better opportunity to gauge my knowledge of the subject?

I’ve read many of your posts before…we agree on quite a bit

Even if we use a dynamic model it does not follow that a tax cut will pay for itself.

I never said it ALWAYS does.

While it is possible in some scenarios, that scenario has not existed for the past 20 years.

We agree.

You are arguing that nobody will have to pay off those government bonds?

No, I’m not making that argument.

We cannot look at government spending and taxation as independent of one another.

I agree

I never said all the money belongs to the government,.

This answers the question I asked

My focus in this thread has been to discuss the morality of voting for tax increases when the one voting may not have to pay a proportional amount that they are asking others to pay. Tied into that has been a discussion about “whose money is it, anyway”. Some say “its the government’s money”. So at what point is it the government’s money? Some believe its the government’s money while it is still in my wallet!

If you want to add questions about the morality of voting for tax cuts when we have shared debt, then that is a fair question that aligns with point of my post. Anything beyond that, for the purposes of this thread, is outside the scope of what I’m asking

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not sure if you are intentionally playing word games or not. Here is the basis of my question: Lets say I currently pay 38% of my income in federal income taxes. Then lets say that Candidate X comes along and says we are going to provide “free” college to all Americans who have incomes below a certain amount. In order to “pay” for this “free” benefit, Candidate X proposes raising the top income tax rate only from 38% to 50% (which won’t cover the cost, but that never stopped a politician…different issue though). So Voter Y says “I would like free college, so I will vote for Candidate X, because I will get something for nothing”.

Now, if I follow your logic right, the extra 12% that I have to cough up, that I can no longer spend on my family, my bills, my retirement, etc., is really no longer my money, but “society’s money”. Did I get that right?

Yes. This is no different than my airport expansion analogy. The extra taxes for the airport expansion is money you can no longer spend on what you like.

 

[shockerfan]

Yes. This is no different than my airport expansion analogy. The extra taxes for the airport expansion is money you can no longer spend on what you like.

Lets take this a step further…just so I’m crystal clear on your perspective. If the town you lived in want to enact the “Leaf Pays for Everything” Act, whereby the only possible person who could qualify to have their taxes raised to 100% would be you, from what I have read, you would have no issue because its the people’s money, not yours, right?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Lets take this a step further…just so I’m crystal clear on your perspective. If the town you lived in want to enact the “Leaf Pays for Everything” Act, whereby the only possible person who could qualify to have their taxes raised to 100% would be you, from what I have read, you would have no issue because its the people’s money, not yours, right?

You seem to think I cannot object to the “Leaf Pays for Everything” Act without also objecting to all social welfare programs. Actually I can.

Laws that are passed by society can be good and fair or they can be outrageously immoral. You can’t tell the difference until you get into the details of the specific law. You cannot simply dismiss a whole category of laws as immoral by saying they allow some people to vote themselves someone else’s money. That is too board an objection, because it applies to every single act that benefits some but not all the voters. As I have been pointing out again and again, the hypothetical airport expansion tax is one such example. Another example might be voting for specific disaster relief.

I’m not saying that all social welfare programs are good and moral. But if you want to attack them, you will have to do so with a more narrowly targeted argument.

 

[shockerfan]

You seem to think I cannot object to the “Leaf Pays for Everything” Act without also objecting to all social welfare programs. Actually I can.

Laws that are passed by society can be good and fair or they can be outrageously immoral. You can’t tell the difference until you get into the details of the specific law. You cannot simply dismiss a whole category of laws as immoral by saying they allow some people to vote themselves someone else’s money. That is too board an objection, because it applies to every single act that benefits some but not all the voters. As I have been pointing out again and again, the hypothetical airport expansion tax is one such example. Another example might be voting for specific disaster relief.

I’m not saying that all social welfare programs are good and moral. But if you want to attack them, you will have to do so with a more narrowly targeted argument.

We are hitting that point where we will have to agree that we view things differently as it relates to how we view 'the people’s money".

My point is this: We seem to have lost sight of the fact that before the government can spend money, a taxpayer had to work and earn it. There is a moral component to expecting another person to work and pay for things that you might want. You might want to get into specific details of this program or that program to determine if it is moral or not, however, we as a country can’t afford all of the programs people might deem “moral”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We are hitting that point where we will have to agree that we view things differently as it relates to how we view 'the people’s money".

I’m not so sure that we do disagree all that much. I think you do agree that sometimes it is OK to vote to spend other people’s money. And I agree with you that we can’t afford to fund all of the programs people might deem “moral”.

 

[shockerfan]

I’m not so sure that we do disagree all that much. I think you do agree that sometimes it is OK to vote to spend other people’s money. And I agree with you that we can’t afford to fund all of the programs people might deem “moral”.

ahhh…common ground:thumbsup:

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“Someone else’s money” implies the money presently belongs to this someone else. In the case of voting how to spend duly collected taxes, the money is no longer “owned” by those taxpayers who originally paid it, but it is owned by the society at large.

Let us remember that OUR MONEY is OURS until the government FORCIBLY takes it as taxes. Now it becomes the government’s money. The government can spend it anyway it wants…unless it is constrained or authorized by the consent of the citizens

There is nothing in our Constitution that authorizes our government to provide welfare.
The government of the United States has no authority to spend money on anything it is not empowered to support.

That addresses where the money is coming from. Now to address where it is going to. The implication of “vote yourself someone else’s money” is that the money is for your benefit and your benefit alone. In the case you are referring to - namely social welfare programs - the benefit is applied to a large class of people, of which the voter in question is just one beneficiary. If you happen to be one of those people, there is nothing immoral about your participating in that vote.

This is why democracies fail and turn socialist. A particular class of people realize that they can essentially vote themselves money and benefits. As long as politicians pander for votes they will provide that class of people anything they ask for. (Rob Peter to pay Paul)

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a small town is voting on whether to fund an airport expansion. Let’s say this is a small airstrip that serves mostly private pilots and has no passenger service. If this issue were put to a vote, would it be immoral for pilots who stand to benefit the most from the expansion to vote on this issue? It could be argued that this also would be a case of voting yourself someone else’s money.

This is a good analogy and it supports the concept of “no votes for those receiving government benefits.”

 

[stinkcat_14]

Let us remember that OUR MONEY is OURS until the government FORCIBLY takes it as taxes.

The government only gets to tax you because you are foolish enough to hang around and be taxed. After all, you could move to the Bahamas and not pay taxes, but you choose to stay here and allow yourself to get taxed. But the government does not force you to stay here, you can leave anything and become a citizen of a more tax friendly country, so are we forced to pay taxes or is it more appropriate to say we choose to pay taxes?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The government only gets to tax you because you are foolish enough to hang around and be taxed. After all, you could move to the Bahamas and not pay taxes, but you choose to stay here and allow yourself to get taxed. But the government does not force you to stay here, you can leave anything and become a citizen of a more tax friendly country, so are we forced to pay taxes or is it more appropriate to say we choose to pay taxes?

I pay some very smart people to make sure I pay very little in Federal and State Income Tax so I don’t mind living here at all. People at the other end of the spectrum pay no income tax and even receive cash because they don’t pay taxes…so they should be VERY happy to live here.

It is the poor schmucks in the middle who have taxes collected by their employers who don’t stand a chance.