Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

Jesus’ radical preaching was not of this world. Left wing politics (socialism) is totally of this world ie secular humanism. Without the call to conversion of the individual, people become state dependant, original sin takes over, expectations increase. Socialism is an alternative to Christianity and I believe was condemned by previous Popes. Fifty years ago I was an enthusiastic Labour supporter (in England) but observed the people’s exploitation of the state in all sorts of ways. Left wing Christians may be exceptional but the general populace aren’t. I don’t think we will be judged on which political party we support.

God bless
Agnes Ainsworth

 

[Orionthehunter]

The following in bold was by cynic with my response not bolded.

**cynic: no I’m saying that charitable groups do not have the money or organizational ability to provide for those who agenuinely require a hand up back to self sufficiency en masse. ** Charitable groups do not have the resourses because we don’t sufficiently practice stewardship to erase poverty. Christ’s statement that we would always have the poor with us belied both His understanding of our failed character but also knowledge that we couldn’t eradicate it by government fiat and taxation. Christ’s lesson regarded how we as individuals responded to the poor in our midst.

Whenever I hear the assertion that it is our Christian duty to take more from the wealthy by force to address the problem I’m struck by the plank in the eye lesson. Until I am making a sacrificial gift to alleviate poverty, I am inadequate to demand disproportionate obligation on anyone, rich or middle class or poor.

**Cynic: What is wrong with the state provided welfare to someone who had just lost their job as long as there’s a time limit. ** This is a matter for the collective prudential judgment of society to the extent that government provides welfare. In the United States there is a general consensus that the use of taxes to at least partially address this social need. The question is a matter of degree and how that taxes are imposed which can be another area for people of good faith to disagree as they exercise their prudential judgment. Personally, I for one can be more liberal on welfare if more determination and flexibility were left to local and state governments.

**Cynic: Would having such person become homeless (with just about zero subsequent chance of finding further employment) be a better option. ** To a large degree opportunity and obligation for this type of assistance has been usurped by the state. In my prudential judgment, this is a travesty. I think that placing more burden on charity most importantly ensure that the assistance is delivered with the gentle hand of Christ and not the callous hand of the Godless state.

Cynic: Would letting low income workers children go without school be a good, just so we can say we didn’t involve the ‘Godless state’. Universal education through local taxation enjoys a very strong level of support by people of both the right and left.

**Cynic: The idea that tax is theft and thus evil is an extreme point of view. ** I know of nobody of reason who doesn’t accept that taxation is a collective price for the Social Contract. However, there is a level in which it begins to violate the principle of subsidiarity, property rights, and other rights granted by our Creator and upheld by the Church. The proper level is one with which people of good faith can reach using their prudential judgment. While you might disagree with me on the level, you are still called to respect my prudential judgment unless you have information which demonstrates that my formation is evil.

Cynic: Tax is an unfortunate neccessity without which half our countries populations would have grown up illeterate for most of the last century. As I said above, universal government education is a service to the public which enjoys broad public support. This being said, there are people of good faith who believe that the current level of illiteracy is a direct result of excessive reliance on government schools. In fact, there are many who think that either a reduction in taxation going to public schools or a diversion of what is going to private schools would improve the situation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am a Christian, but aside from being pro-life, I would have to say my views lean leftwards. I am against the Iraq War (who would Jesus bomb?) and capital punishment. Remember, Jesus was killed under capital punishment.

Thumbing through some of the threads, I can’t help but notice a good bit of anti-leftism hanging around. There was once a guy who had some pretty radical views who didn’t get much respect from the churches either. I think his name was Jesus.

I don’t think Jesus can be categorised. ISTM He would be extremely upsetting to both “left” and “right”, & that if the Passion were to occur today, He would be well hated by both. Pretty much as He united His enemies when He was around to be hurt in person. He is a very upsetting person - & how many people like having their ideas, way of life, religious practice, or moral conduct upset ?​

He is a very poor guarantor of “family values”, or of the existing social order; even (especially ?) the religious social order - but He doesn’t fit as an anarchist either. If the Churches were utterly Christian, probably they would be too “left-wing” for some, & too “right-wing” for others. C.S. Lewis made a similar point, only rather better - maybe an OP can remember where.

I can’t make up my mind over capital punishment - as long as it is humanely inflicted, I don’t see why it could not in principle be inflicted for a great many crimes. And some crimes are particularly damaging. What people forget is that it is as truly a sin to fail to condemn those who are guilty, as to condemn the innocent - both are examples of a miscarriage of justice. Bombing human beings is a very different matter - particularly those who are non-combatants.

 

[CentralFLJames]

er, relevance. Is this just another way of saying “everyone has their place”

Yes and No. Our place is never a static condition. We change and adapt as conditions and needs vary.

so you don’t think society should try and ensure every child gets educated? My idealistic ‘system’ is what excatly. Adequate funding for schooling? Oh heavens,communism by stealth. Equalising opportunity (or at least providing adequate opportunity) is not the same as equalising outcomes. Yours is just another convenient misprepresentation.

All you are doing is picking one thing from a set of things that may be of general interest to society. Would you do away with the notion of “grades” of achievement and simply give everyone an equal “pass/fail” designation on a diploma? How many times would you re-educate a person if they just could not “get it”? Would you pass everyone and just wait for them to fail in society then declare them perpetual wards of the state?

Hmm, it sounds like you are suggesting some kind of mentoring system as a preemption to the traditional way of picking the failures off the streets through the judicial/criminal system. Hmm, I kind of like a proactive approach to rounding up those likely to fail and putting them on the reservation before they fail…

envisiging a society where everyones children can go to school, where it’s possible to attain some healthcare (if you work) and where wages are set so that the lowest paid can still afford to eat - this is all lowering humanity in the aggregate to its lowest common denominator.

It is when it results in deprecating the quality of service for all as a means of holding costs equal. There is also a fairness issue that gets swept under the carpet of “the process” when we make a single universal tier of service.

If you were in good medical condition (since you take care of yourself, exercise, eat healthy, not into substance abuse and had good family medical history) and had private insurance that only cost you $3,000/year for major medical would you be willing to replace that with a government system that taxes you $5,000 a year, has mountains of paperwork in bureaucracy with high limits on what medical procedures can be used? How would you feel if your neighbor next door who has substance abuse problems and is 200 lbs overweight, on perpetual medication gets free medical since he can’t hold a job and is on the dole? All things being equal don’t you think everyone should pay equally for the same level of service ?

What if there are not too many “intellectual” sorts of jobs available and we are predominantly a service economy (kind of like we have now ). Why would you want to spend $19K/year to educate HS kids who have no aptitude for science-math when you could put these same kids into government administrative bean-counter jobs and have them making income (and paying taxes) while giving them on the job training? All they need to know is how to say “no” to medical insurance claims that are submitted to the new government health care agency that hires them (see above).

againi never said lets abolish private property and have governemnts pay everyone the same wage, so this is irrelevant.

Well once you open the door for wide-scale government “help” we invite them into every aspect of society and make “government help” a new job market. We don’t create any new wealth or real value. That’s the problem with big tax-n-spend social governments. They are incentivized to keep creating new problems to employ themselves. That’s a great way to bootstrap incompetence.

James

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think Jesus can be categorised. ISTM He would be extremely upsetting to both “left” and “right”, & that if the Passion were to occur today, He would be well hated by both. Pretty much as He united His enemies when He was around to be hurt in person. He is a very upsetting person - & how many people like having their ideas, way of life, religious practice, or moral conduct upset ?​

He is a very poor guarantor of “family values”, or of the existing social order; even (especially ?) the religious social order - but He doesn’t fit as an anarchist either. If the Churches were utterly Christian, probably they would be too “left-wing” for some, & too “right-wing” for others. C.S. Lewis made a similar point, only rather better - maybe an OP can remember where.

Hi Michael,

I agree. The reason Jesus can’t be categorised is that he was apolitical. He called people to change themselves, not the government. Regardless of whether we are to live in a completely socialist or completely laissez faire society, the Lord expects us to still convert our hearts, turn away from sin, care for the poor, etc.

As a group of Christians (aka the Church), we should be doing the same. The government, on the otherhand, is not a group of Christians. Rather, it is a construct which is there to support society. We can use it to institute social programs and make them as big or small as we want. Either way, Left or Right, is fully Christian.

My personal stance is in line with the Church teaching of subsidiarity. That is, the federal government should not be involved in things better handled by the state; the state should not be involved in things better handled by the county; the county should not be involved in things better handled by the city; and the city should not be involved in things better handled by the individual. So, that makes me much more of a “right winger” at the federal and state levels than I am at the local level.

Sorry I can’t help you on the CS Lewis quote…

 

[Orionthehunter]

Hi Michael,

I agree. The reason Jesus can’t be categorised is that he was apolitical. He called people to change themselves, not the government. Regardless of whether we are to live in a completely socialist or completely laissez faire society, the Lord expects us to still convert our hearts, turn away from sin, care for the poor, etc.

As a group of Christians (aka the Church), we should be doing the same. The government, on the otherhand, is not a group of Christians. Rather, it is a construct which is there to support society. We can use it to institute social programs and make them as big or small as we want. Either way, Left or Right, is fully Christian.

My personal stance is in line with the Church teaching of subsidiarity. That is, the federal government should not be involved in things better handled by the state; the state should not be involved in things better handled by the county; the county should not be involved in things better handled by the city; and the city should not be involved in things better handled by the individual. So, that makes me much more of a “right winger” at the federal and state levels than I am at the local level.

Sorry I can’t help you on the CS Lewis quote…

I so much agree w/ your last comment which I bolded. Too often the debate is with regards to expanding federal programs. Those who know what I advocate locally consider me a flaming liberal. Those who know what I advocate on the federal level consider me a far right winger. But those who know ME, know I’m neither. I struggle every day w/ all the poverty around me but my first question and last question is always, what am I doing about it? Until I get satisfied w/ that answer, there is no room for me to judge others.

 

[Christine_Blake]

Unchecked?? What fantasy world are you talking about? There has not been a 6-year, pro-life majority and certainly not the super-majority required to end abortion-on-demand. There was some progress in those 6 years the Republicans were in control of both branches, but there was certainly plenty of resistance available from the Left and moderates in their own party.

Actually, the one change they made in partial-birth abortions was started during the Clinton admin…also, there was a Republican majority for 6 years- they took off from vacation over the Terri Shivo (spelling?) case, why not take a lunch and get rid of abortion?

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, the one change they made in partial-birth abortions was started during the Clinton admin…also, there was a Republican majority for 6 years- they took off from vacation over the Terri Shivo (spelling?) case, why not take a lunch and get rid of abortion?

There was a Republican majority, but not a pro-life majority. I’m not sure why people don’t understand that. And, as I noted and you didn’t refute, there was not a super-majority, which is what would be required to get rid of abortion.

As far as the partial-birth abortion ban “started during the Clinton admin,” what is your point? Was Clinton the architect of the partial-birth abortion ban? Did he promote it? Did he sign it into law or veto it?

So, what are your pro-life expectations of the Democrats in control now? Will things get better, or worse?

 

[rlg94086]

I so much agree w/ your last comment which I bolded. Too often the debate is with regards to expanding federal programs. Those who know what I advocate locally consider me a flaming liberal. Those who know what I advocate on the federal level consider me a far right winger. But those who know ME, know I’m neither. I struggle every day w/ all the poverty around me but my first question and last question is always, what am I doing about it? Until I get satisfied w/ that answer, there is no room for me to judge others.

Imagine the bureacracy that would be cut out, if we all took this tack? The federal government would be back to what the founders had in mind - the bare minimum. Instead we have bloated bureacracies at every level of government.

 

[okieflyer]

No one never mentions putting a time table to pull out of Iraq. That eats a lot of money too…

What costs more than Iraq…

Guess that is just an anathema to neoconservatives.

Included are the URL’s for verification of the following facts:

$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. tinyurl.com/zob77

$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally

$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies

$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. tinyurl.com/t9sht

The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’ nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. rense.com/general75/niht.htm

‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States’.
[drdsk.com](drdsk.com)

Total cost is a whooping… $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

Social Security Change For 2008

The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008. The following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

Alaska: Stevens (R)

Arizona: McCain (R)

Arkansas: Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)

California: Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)

Colorado: Salazar (D)

Connecticut: Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)

Delaware: Biden (D) Carper (D)

Florida: Martinez (R)

Hawaii: Akaka (D) Inouye (D)

Illinois: Durbin (D) Obama (D)

Indiana: Bayh (D) Lugar (R)

Iowa: Harkin (D)

Kansas: Brownback (R)

Louisiana: Landrieu (D)

Maryland: Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)

Massachusetts: Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)

Montana: Baucus (D)

Nebraska: Hagel (R)

Nevada: Reid (D)

New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)

New Mexico: Bingaman (D)

New York: Clinton (D) Schumer (D)

North Dakota: Dorgan (D)

Ohio: DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)

Oregon: Wyden (D)

Pennsylvania: Specter (R)

Rhode Island: Chafee (R) Reed (D)

South Carolina: Graham (R)

South Dakota: Johnson (D)

Vermont: Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)

Washington: Cantwell (D) Murray (D)

Wisconsin: Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

 

[ribozyme]

Included are the URL’s for verification of the following facts:

$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. tinyurl.com/zob77

$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally

$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies

$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

Here’s something that might help you:

Poorly educated immigrants impose large costs on U.S. taxpayers. Any taxes they pay are greatly outweighed by the costs of the government benefits they consume. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that the average immigrant without a high school degree will impose a net cost of nearly $100,000 on U.S. taxpayers over the course of his or her life. This cost is in excess of any taxes paid and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant’s children.

heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm

Yes, I agree with Robert Rector… Paul Krugman himself acknowledges immigration is a burden to the welfare state.

I find it weird for me to be using some paper from the Heritage Foundation to support a point. But I do think their “Indices of Economic Freedom” project to be fairly objective and I recommend it as an objective resource for everyone despite their political agenda.

Good job!! Keep up the wonking!!!

 

[cynic]

The following in bold was by cynic with my response not bolded.

**cynic: no I’m saying that charitable groups do not have the money or organizational ability to provide for those who agenuinely require a hand up back to self sufficiency en masse. **Charitable groups do not have the resourses because we don’t sufficiently practice stewardship to erase poverty. Christ’s statement that we would always have the poor with us belied both His understanding of our failed character but also knowledge that we couldn’t eradicate it by government fiat and taxation. Christ’s lesson regarded how we as individuals responded to the poor in our midst.

Whenever I hear the assertion that it is our Christian duty to take more from the wealthy by force to address the problem I’m struck by the plank in the eye lesson. Until I am making a sacrificial gift to alleviate poverty, I am inadequate to demand disproportionate obligation on anyone, rich or middle class or poor.

.

don’t we all pay tax. We aren’t just obliging others, we oblige ourselves by supporting such a government. The problem is certain people don’t want to pay any tax, instead leaving the fate of the poor up to chance - whether enough people *feel *like giving enough to actually be an effective substitute for state assistance.

**Cynic: What is wrong with the state provided welfare to someone who had just lost their job as long as there’s a time limit. **This is a matter for the collective prudential judgment of society to the extent that government provides welfare. In the United States there is a general consensus that the use of taxes to at least partially address this social need. The question is a matter of degree and how that taxes are imposed which can be another area for people of good faith to disagree as they exercise their prudential judgment. Personally, I for one can be more liberal on welfare if more determination and flexibility were left to local and state governments.

.

Look at some of these posts, it is not a matter of degree for the ‘right wingers’. Tax is theft. End of story. There is no room for a ‘reasonable’ level of assistance, or consensus on the use of tax. The ‘right’, in the context of economic libertarianism, hold a no-compromise position.

**Cynic: Would having such person become homeless (with just about zero subsequent chance of finding further employment) be a better option. **To a large degree opportunity and obligation for this type of assistance has been usurped by the state. In my prudential judgment, this is a travesty. I think that placing more burden on charity most importantly ensure that the assistance is delivered with the gentle hand of Christ and not the callous hand of the Godless state.

.

so would a catholic or non-denomenational charitable organization help him out with the rent or not? Would that help be guaranteed to all who require it? Specifics matter.

Cynic: Would letting low income workers children go without school be a good, just so we can say we didn’t involve the ‘Godless state’. Universal education through local taxation enjoys a very strong level of support by people of both the right and left.

.

Not here it doesn’t. Read the posts.

**Cynic: The idea that tax is theft and thus evil is an extreme point of view. **I know of nobody of reason who doesn’t accept that taxation is a collective price for the Social Contract. However, there is a level in which it begins to violate the principle of subsidiarity, property rights, and other rights granted by our Creator and upheld by the Church. The proper level is one with which people of good faith can reach using their prudential judgment. While you might disagree with me on the level, you are still called to respect my prudential judgment unless you have information which demonstrates that my formation is evil.

.

again libertarism doesn’t allow for that kind of reasoning.

Cynic: Tax is an unfortunate neccessity without which half our countries populations would have grown up illeterate for most of the last century. As I said above, universal government education is a service to the public which enjoys broad public support. This being said, there are people of good faith who believe that the current level of illiteracy is a direct result of excessive reliance on government schools. In fact, there are many who think that either a reduction in taxation going to public schools or a diversion of what is going to private schools would improve the situation.

vouchers still need to be funded from tax.

 

[cynic]

Would you do away with the notion of “grades” of achievement and simply give everyone an equal “pass/fail” designation on a diploma? How many times would you re-educate a person if they just could not “get it”? Would you pass everyone and just wait for them to fail in society then declare them perpetual wards of the state? How many people out there are so incapable that they can’t do any kind of work?

Why would anyone want that? Aren’t you mixing up opportunity with outcome again. Of course you can’t ensure everyone does well, but you can at least give them the means. Most kids can absorb enough to leave school with some skills or potential anyway, which is better than nothing.

If you were in good medical condition (since you take care of yourself, exercise, eat healthy, not into substance abuse and had good family medical history) and had private insurance that only cost you $3,000/year for major medical would you be willing to replace that with a government system that taxes you $5,000 a year, has mountains of paperwork in bureaucracy with high limits on what medical procedures can be used?

first of all you need a spare $3000 to begin with. This is $3000 to insure *one *person, not other family members. This could possibly be in addition to private schooling costs for chidren. Finally it’s not just about what I want for me.

All things being equal don’t you think everyone should pay equally for the same level of service ?

No, not with someone who is working but falls below an income level. Then the government can subsidise the insurance. This happens in socialist dictatorships like um …Germany and er, Japan, with their lazy workforces and general commitment to mediocrity.

Well once you open the door for wide-scale government “help” we invite them into every aspect of society and make “government help” a new job market. We don’t create any new wealth or real value. That’s the problem with big tax-n-spend social governments. They are incentivized to keep creating new problems to employ themselves. That’s a great way to bootstrap incompetence.

James

The purpose of government help is not to create wealth. Although it does have flow on effects, like having a literate workforce for future employers, and potentially higher number of doctors, engineers and other professionals in the workforce who came from poor families, and people who don’t have to resort to crime to get by when disaster strikes.

 

[SoCalRC]

Included are the URL’s for verification of the following facts:

Many of these are opinions from various individuals. A fact is normally something you can count and independantly verify.

Total cost is a whooping… $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

Actually, adding this up is a little nonsensical. Several of the citations use the same ‘costs’. That is, you are adding up some things multiple times. Also, the timeframes and contexts are slighttly different.

The actual cost or benefit is hard to really measure. A pool of cheap labor undoubtedly supresses wages in some sectors. In fact, without illegal immigration the labor pool would be shrinking about 4% or so annually. On the flip side, a pool of flexible cheap labor helps keep the economy cooking (hence the GOPs interest in guest worker programs).

The Wall Street Journal did a nice piece on the complexities a couple of years ago:

online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115100948305787940-tA5PP0Ya_9U0AlXBQQhnaDyMIYc_20060725.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Some ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ are not even mentioned. For example, our current horrendously overtaxed armed forces appear to be about 19% undocumented alien. Somehow, I don’t see those 30,000 jobs getting snapped up by eager young Republicans anytime soon (if you are unwilling to pay for your own national defense, it seems an even bigger stretch to expect you to pay for it).

Social Security Change For 2008

Just to be clear, this is not a case of law makers answering Jesus direct call about our treatment of aliens (in contrast to the Pharisees, who were extreme xenophobes). Some lawmakers have brought up the issue that the taxes were collected regardless of legal status. But others support the measure because in collecting the benefits accrued, there is actually an extra mechanism for enforcement against blatant employers. The complete statements of the different law makers are worth reading in their entirety.

 

[rlg94086]

don’t we all pay tax. We aren’t just obliging others, we oblige ourselves by supporting such a government. The problem is certain people don’t want to pay any tax, instead leaving the fate of the poor up to chance - whether enough people *feel *like giving enough to actually be an effective substitute for state assistance.

Look at some of these posts, it is not a matter of degree for the ‘right wingers’. Tax is theft. End of story. There is no room for a ‘reasonable’ level of assistance, or consensus on the use of tax. The ‘right’, in the context of economic libertarianism, hold a no-compromise position.

so would a catholic or non-denomenational charitable organization help him out with the rent or not? Would that help be guaranteed to all who require it? Specifics matter.

Not here it doesn’t. Read the posts.

again libertarism doesn’t allow for that kind of reasoning.

vouchers still need to be funded from tax.

Cynic,

You seem to be under a mistaken notion that there are a large number of libertarians on CAF. I’ve read the posts…there are very few. Most of us “right wingers” accept everything Orionthehunter posted.

Most everyone I know agrees that there should be a safety net. Of course taxes are required to pay for the net. The size and location of the net (federal, state, local) are the things that are questioned.

 

[ribozyme]

Cynic,

You seem to be under a mistaken notion that there are a large number of libertarians on CAF. I’ve read the posts…there are very few. Most of us “right wingers” accept everything Orionthehunter posted.

Most everyone I know agrees that there should be a safety net. Of course taxes are required to pay for the net. The size and location of the net (federal, state, local) are the things that are questioned.

So what is wrong with Sweden-style safety net? How is that immoral?

 

[ribozyme]

Actually, adding this up is a little nonsensical. Several of the citations use the same ‘costs’. That is, you are adding up some things multiple times. Also, the timeframes and contexts are slighttly different

Have you read the work of Borjas? BTW, did you read that link to that Heritage Foundation paper? I read it, but I do not want to discuss it because it might make me sound xenophobic. But, I haven’t read the views of David Card on immigration. Could you provide me an abridged version of his arguments.

 

[rlg94086]

So what is wrong with Sweden-style safety net? How is that immoral?

Did I say it is immoral? I think it is a lousy system that may work in Sweden. I don’t think it would work for the US, so I would always vote against proposals echoing that sort of system. It has nothing to do with morality.

 

[ribozyme]

Did I say it is immoral? I think it is a lousy system that may work in Sweden. I don’t think it would work for the US, so I would always vote against proposals echoing that sort of system. It has nothing to do with morality.

Ok, but what do you think of the writings of Paul Krugman? The person who rails about inequality and praises the European nanny state? Why don’t people embrace Paul Krugman’s views?

 

[rlg94086]

Ok, but what do you think of the writings of Paul Krugman? The person who rails about inequality and praises the European nanny state? Why don’t people embrace Paul Krugman’s views?

Because Paul Krugman is only one economist. Other economists disagree with him. His opinions really don’t hold much weight with me, because he reads like a political hack.