[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Charity and Gov't restricted healthcare are not among those powers:


Simply put, a gov't empowered to do all good is a government empowered to do all bad. There are tradeoffs, to be sure. But the greatest opportunity for all Americans, even the poorest of the poor, is for the gov't to step aside and let them pursue their own life, liberty and happiness. Those are inherent rights, yes. But, they are also responsibilities. No matter how noble you believe gov't can be, it cannot supplant that responsibility to one's self.

THAT is why trillions of dollars later, the war on poverty is a worse failure than the war in Iraq. . .

~faith,
Timothy.

Interesting, especially to see how far we have moved away from that document.

I guess we're just going to have to agree on some things and not agree on others. I have nothing against self-reliance, but I cannot advocate Social Darwinism, either. There has to be a middle ground.

BTW - "Governement Restricted Healthcare..." Nice, new talking point, but I don't think it's going to go over so well, anymore. There are too many hard working people who are falling through the cracks of our broken healthcare system to be bamboozled again by buzzwords and scare tactics. The fear is in not getting care. I don't think you can overcome the realities of that.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

This is the message we've sent: "Here's your check, now stay out of our economy, and our society." I just don't find that to be compassionate.

Throwing a few bucks at a person might expiate some amount of guilt, but it fixes nothing. Personally, I would favor helping someone out of poverty rather than patting my back for making poverty more tolerable.

Giving somebody ANYTHING without teaching them how to get it for themselves is - and always will be - a short term bandaid. It's not compassionate, to be sure.

Ultimately, the problem with the Great Society is that it starts with the assumption that people shouldn't be responsible for themselves. That is a dreadful attack on the internal fortitude to pull oneself up out of poverty. "Don't worry yourselves: you aren't responsible and Uncle Daddy will be there for you." That is a recipe FOR poverty; not a pathway out of it.

~faith,
Timothy.

Addressing persistent childhood poverty is not charity. From an economic analysis alone it makes sense to intervene and help these children and their families develop the skills that they need to achieve and succeed in our society. But from a values standpoint it is more important to do this because it is the right thing to do.

I don't think anything I have ever written condones a non-work ethic or irresponsibility. If anything I have written in favor of the opposite. I was speaking in my post to the larger value of what use of tax dollars yields the greater long term benefit to society. I think that I very clearly spoke to my own preference for using tax dollars to help give the poor real job skills and not condemn them to a life of meniality working for WalMart. Real job skills for careers that pay a living wage. (Machinist, nurse whatever). Living wage jobs that take families away from dependency. Helping them become a part of society. Family and child early intervention programs do work and pay for themselves in direct benefits both to families and society at large.

See:

Thus a strong consensus has developed among experts who have studied high-quality early childhood development programs that these programs have substantial and enduring payoffs. Long-term studies of ECD participants have consistently found that investing in children has several lasting, important benefits for the participants, their families, and society at large including taxpayers. These benefits include:

Higher levels of verbal, mathematical, and general intellectual achievement
Greater success at school, including less grade retention, less need for special education, and higher graduation rates

Higher employment and earnings
Better health outcomes
Less welfare dependency
Lower crime rates
Higher government revenues and lower government expenditures

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/book_enriching#exec

The above is real compassion.

The following shows how poverty is a cause of premature death.

The Economic Geography of Premature Mortality
(by Boston neighborhood and census-tract poverty levels, 1999-2001)

Boston neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty generally have higher rates of premature mortality (newly defined as death under 75 years of age). The map depicts the association, by neighborhood, between the proportion of residents within the neighborhood living in census tracts of differing poverty levels (color-coded legend below, and in bars on map) and the meighborhood's overall rate of premature mortality (the darker the backgroung, the higher the incidence of early death).

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/030636.html

[Elvish]

Originally Posted by Miss_Chybil

I'm always amazed that the people who holler the most about God and country, want to make sure "God" stays on our money, are the ones who are most afraid they might have to pay for someone's food and medicine and yet - as I said earlier - have no problem paying for war.

We should all be expected to pitch in, though, on the health of our nation, if not for humanitarian or religious reasons, at least, for our own security.
People who are able to work and work, should make a living wage.
People who are sick should be cared for.
People who are hungry should be fed.

Chybil, I have to address this. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and go to what would be called a conservative church. And I think you are right on the money. It is precisely because of my faith that I feel so strongly about helping my fellow man. Look through the Bible....so many people that Jesus healed. He could've said, "Nope, sorry, you haven't worked hard enough for it. Why should I heal you, a beggar, when there are plenty of working people who are sick too? Why should I heal your daughter, Syrophoenician woman, when there are plenty of Jewish kids who need my attention first?" No. He healed them, period. I am not saying that I'm the prime example of following Christ. Far from it; that is just the ideal that I aspire to as one of His followers.

Ideally, the gov't shouldn't have to be the one to provide for everyone's needs, be they healthcare, food, job training, name that commodity. Ideally, God's people should be the ones doing that. We should be so committed to walking in His steps that we take away any need for gov't intervention/interference (whichever way you look at it). But since we as individuals haven't stepped up to the plate, somebody has to. If it bothers us so much to see gov't intervening, then we ourselves should be the ones to help out -- donating, feeding, teaching, etc. God forbid we should ever have a run of bad luck (or whatever you call it, I really don't believe in luck) and be in those same desperate straits ourselves. I completely believe in the Golden Rule and do my best to help others because I know I would want someone to help me should I ever find myself in the unfortunate circumstance wherein I cannot put food on my table.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Arwen_U

Chybil, I have to address this. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and go to what would be called a conservative church. And I think you are right on the money. It is precisely because of my faith that I feel so strongly about helping my fellow man. Look through the Bible....so many people that Jesus healed. He could've said, "Nope, sorry, you haven't worked hard enough for it. Why should I heal you, a beggar, when there are plenty of working people who are sick too? Why should I heal your daughter, Syrophoenician woman, when there are plenty of Jewish kids who need my attention first?" No. He healed them, period. I am not saying that I'm the prime example of following Christ. Far from it; that is just the ideal that I aspire to as one of His followers.

Ideally, the gov't shouldn't have to be the one to provide for everyone's needs, be they healthcare, food, job training, name that commodity. Ideally, God's people should be the ones doing that. We should be so committed to walking in His steps that we take away any need for gov't intervention/interference (whichever way you look at it). But since we as individuals haven't stepped up to the plate, somebody has to. If it bothers us so much to see gov't intervening, then we ourselves should be the ones to help out -- donating, feeding, teaching, etc. God forbid we should ever have a run of bad luck (or whatever you call it, I really don't believe in luck) and be in those same desperate straits ourselves. I completely believe in the Golden Rule and do my best to help others because I know I would want someone to help me should I ever find myself in the unfortunate circumstance wherein I cannot put food on my table.

Government is a tool by which we can offer help to our fellow man. I absolutely believe in the role of private acts of good to improve the lot of the least fortunate. Where government has a role is it provides a place where decisions can be made to allocate resources to meet needs that are beyond the capacity of smaller organizations. I think it is important to have constructive practical discussions about how to solve real problems.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Government is a tool by which we can offer help to our fellow man. I absolutely believe in the role of private acts of good to improve the lot of the least fortunate. Where government has a role is it provides a place where decisions can be made to allocate resources to meet needs that are beyond the capacity of smaller organizations. I think it is important to have constructive practical discussions about how to solve real problems.

The problem is that the so called anti-poverty programs do no such thing. It's not that I'm not compassionate; it's that I believe the programs in place and the programs advocated by socialists/progressives aren't compassionate.

This is a rich nation. No one should go without food, shelter, and yes, even healthcare. I have never said otherwise.

What I HAVE said is that the socialist/progressive idea of a utopia is a house of cards that always falls because at its heart, it ignores basic human motivations. Trillions of dollars and decades later, and we are no closer to ending 'poverty as we know it'.

See, the goal of current and proposed (within this thread) anti-poverty programs isn't to lift people out of poverty. At its heart, the socialist/progressive agenda is to equalize outcomes. At issue is not how to provide incentive to move out of poverty, but rather, how to make amends for poverty itself.

Redistribution of wealth is a concept that the outcomes should be equalized: from each according to his strengths, to each according to his needs. Since poverty is a value-neutral station in life, there should BE no penalty for being poor. There but for the grace of God go I, right?

Except, it's not true. Abled-bodied people that are poor do bear responsibility for their situation. Or rather, they (and only they) possess the power to overcome and move out of poverty. It's not that God has blessed ME with the rewards of hard work and not others; it's that God blesses hard work, period.

Instead of poverty programs designed to provide incentive to get out of poverty, socialist/progressives have designed programs to ameliorate being poor; to accomodate it.

Single family housing, food stamp programs that allow for as much access and as rich an assortment of food as anybody, free health insurance, cash in hand. Redistribution is about equalizing outcomes. There should be no penalty for being poor, right? Look at the healthcare debate: socialist/progressive do not argue that everybody should have access to healthcare; they argue that everybody should have access to the SAME level of healthcare. Instead of arguing for a foot in the door of a great system, socialist/progressives argue for an equal share in a dismal outcome.

You can convince Americans to provide for the less well off. THAT's why we've spent the trillions of dollars in the last several decades. You can even convince them to cover everybody for healthcare. THAT's why medicaid, schip, and EMTALA are tolerated. Money is just money. Americans will cede a significant portion of their own money over in taxes IF they think it is helping the less fortunate. For socialist/progressives, this concept is a foot in the door. At the end of the day, however, most Americans will not sacrifice their standard of living in order to help others. Americans are fine with the concept of helping others rise up; not so fine with the concept of forcing those that work and pay for the system down to an equal level. THAT is why gov't restricted healthcare will not sell in this nation. It is why President Clinton was forced to sign the welfare reform act: the masses of Americans got tired of welfare that gives those that don't work equal access to the stations in life of people that DO work. Americans are always willing to help; they are just not willing to lower their own stations in life and call it even.

In an older thread, I argued that if socialist/progressivess regulated ice cream, we'd only be entitled to a bowl every 6 weeks. Somebody actually responded that a bowl every 6 weeks was better than nothing if you couldn't afford it. Understand this though: to that person, it was a better system for everybody to wait six weeks to get ice cream than a system where the vast majority could get ice cream for fractions of an hour's wage. The goal wasn't to get the poor more access to ice cream; it was to make sure that the masses didn't have a higher level of access. Equalizing outcomes is not the same thing as providing for those in need. Not at all. At heart, these programs do not advocate better access but rather, a "fair" share in a dismal outcome.

Except. Making amends for being poor only allows the continued subsistance in poverty. We have removed, in the name of combating poverty, the motivations to rise above it. We have created a standard of living, on welfare.

Welfare should be a hand up, not a standard of living.

Let me point out that 'soaking the rich' should have nothing to do with anti-poverty. If the goal truly were helping the poor, who cares what station in life anybody else holds? But it DOES matter when the goal is equalizing outcomes. THAT is why socialist/progressive spend so much time railing against the rich. Helping the poor isn't about helping the poor; it is about a socialist idea of equalized outcomes. Since socialism itself ignores basic human motivations, ending in failure, it is no surprise that anti-poverty programs designed by its followers invariably result in the same failures.

Socialist/progressives will never design programs based upon the motivations to excel because it is not their goal. Their goal isn't to move people out of poverty, but rather, by redistribution, to equalize outcomes. That type of anti-poverty program is, and always will be, a failure.

Therein lies the problem. I'm not against helping the poor. I'm against the socialist/progressive programs that do no such thing. You can feel free to call me uncompassionate. I'm against the current anti-poverty programs not because I'm uncompassionate but because I believe these programs themselves TO BE uncompassionate.

Designing programs, in the name of redistribution, that allow for the subsistance in poverty and NOT for reaching up out of poverty, is not compassionate.

(If you believe that progressive is not merely a more politically correct name for socialist, then I humbly ask that you point out the differences. I've asked this question before, and it has never been answered.)

~faith,
Timothy.

[Elvish]

FTR, I don't believe in utopia as long as there are imperfect people living in this world. Which is going to be for a long time, depending on when/how you think the world will end.

But I do believe there is a way that people can be given a hand up and I believe that it CAN come from the gov't. Like I said in previous posts, we who are supposed to be Christ's hands and feet in this world should be the ones doing it ideally, but we fall short as often as anyone else.

The longer I live in the US, the more I think places like Finland really have their act together. There is not nearly the crime rate, the poverty rate, the government stupidity, the teen pregnancy rate, or the high % of uninsured. Yup, I said it. I think I like the way things a lot of things are done in a social democracy.

I'm not saying I hate the US, nor am I ungrateful for the opportunities I've been given here. BUT -- we obviously don't have all the answers and we would do well watch & learn from others who might just be onto something. Finns can go to church wherever they want, they elect their own president & parliament, they can criticize their government. They can also count on their health needs being met. They can count on affordable (nice, safe) government-subsidized housing should they need it (everyone doesn't). Mothers (and fathers) have 9-month parental leaves after a baby's birth. If they want more unpaid leave, their jobs are protected for three years. Finns can come and go as they please. And to top it all off, they have TWO official languages. (Just had to throw that in there.) I could go on and on.

To be sure, it's not utopia, since it's full of human beings. There are problems there just like everywhere else. You can't escape that in an imperfect world. There are things that seem kind of silly, like if you want to get married under the age of 18 you have to write the President asking permission. (Whether she grants it or not, who knows.) But really, it just seems that the Finnish gov't does things so sensibly. And they don't live like it's 1984.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Arwen_U

FTR, I don't believe in utopia as long as there are imperfect people living in this world. Which is going to be for a long time, depending on when/how you think the world will end.

But I do believe there is a way that people can be given a hand up and I believe that it CAN come from the gov't. Like I said in previous posts, we who are supposed to be Christ's hands and feet in this world should be the ones doing it ideally, but we fall short as often as anyone else.

The longer I live in the US, the more I think places like Finland really have their act together. There is not nearly the crime rate, the poverty rate, the government stupidity, the teen pregnancy rate, or the high % of uninsured. Yup, I said it. I think I like the way things a lot of things are done in a social democracy.

I'm not saying I hate the US, nor am I ungrateful for the opportunities I've been given here. BUT -- we obviously don't have all the answers and we would do well watch & learn from others who might just be onto something. Finns can go to church wherever they want, they elect their own president & parliament, they can criticize their government. They can also count on their health needs being met. They can count on affordable (nice, safe) government-subsidized housing should they need it (everyone doesn't). Mothers (and fathers) have 9-month parental leaves after a baby's birth. If they want more unpaid leave, their jobs are protected for three years. Finns can come and go as they please. And to top it all off, they have TWO official languages. (Just had to throw that in there.) I could go on and on.

To be sure, it's not utopia, since it's full of human beings. There are problems there just like everywhere else. You can't escape that in an imperfect world. There are things that seem kind of silly, like if you want to get married under the age of 18 you have to write the President asking permission. (Whether she grants it or not, who knows.) But really, it just seems that the Finnish gov't does things so sensibly. And they don't live like it's 1984.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f6eed1b6-d75...b5df10621.html

"Opinion polls did not predict the result, but what has happened in Finland seems to mirror a process across the Nordic region: social democracy is in retreat.

The swing away from the Social Democrats suggests that the traditional Nordic model of high taxation and generous welfare policies may also be less reassuring in countries with an ageing population. Finland expects to have the oldest population in the European Union in the next 10 years. From 2010 the workforce is expected to shrink by 10,000 a year.

"Ageing is the biggest challenge to our economy," Erkki Liikanen, the Bank of Finland governor, said yesterday"

The problem, just as the Soviets figured out, and just as Finland is figuring out, is that you cannot tax yourself into prosperity. Systems built on such models are pyramids: they might make the first-in rich, or relatively better off, but at the back-in, it's a house of cards that falls.

THIS is why unemployment and economic growth in America is currently twice that of Europe. It is also why Europe must import Muslims from all over, creating political problems: a pyramid scheme depends upon new blood into the system.

It is also, btw, why Social Security is doomed to fail. You can't sustain a pyramid scheme forever.

The issue is sustainability. These programs, over the long haul, are simply unsustainable. Why? Because, you cannot tax yourself into prosperity.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Elvish]

I read the article and didn't think it was as alarmist as your post sounds. Doesn't sound to me like the Finnish economic infrastructure is going to be radically changing anytime soon. You may think otherwise and that's fine. I am going to sleep ok tonight either way.

I don't know about you but I don't need prosperity, at least not material prosperity. I don't feel the need for the two-car garage populated by a Bentley and a Benz, nor the 3/4-million dollar home on 100 acres of land. And I have a big issue when people start acting like toddlers saying "MINE!" and not wanting to share.

Material prosperity is just that -- materials. Things. Things that I will not be taking with me when I die. Everything I have is not really mine to begin with. So it is not that big a deal to me to be sharing tax dollars, esp if I know they are going to fund decent maternity leave. Better that than raises for overpaid Congressmen.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Arwen_U

I read the article and didn't think it was as alarmist as your post sounds. Doesn't sound to me like the Finnish economic infrastructure is going to be radically changing anytime soon. You may think otherwise and that's fine. I am going to sleep ok tonight either way.

I don't know about you but I don't need prosperity, at least not material prosperity. I don't feel the need for the two-car garage populated by a Bentley and a Benz, nor the 3/4-million dollar home on 100 acres of land. And I have a big issue when people start acting like toddlers saying "MINE!" and not wanting to share.

Material prosperity is just that -- materials. Things. Things that I will not be taking with me when I die. Everything I have is not really mine to begin with. So it is not that big a deal to me to be sharing tax dollars, esp if I know they are going to fund decent maternity leave. Better that than raises for overpaid Congressmen.

That is your choice. You have no right, however, to use the coercive power of gov't to impose your choice upon others. The simple act of attempting to do so makes gov't the grab bag of power. And, it makes gov't evil.

You don't advocate convincing your fellow man of your viewpoints. You advocate using the power of gov't to bully your viewpoints upon those that disagree with you, philosophically. If you can only get your point of view passed, then everybody will have no choice but to go along. You even say this directly: that you are disappointed with the amount of charity you see around you (even though Americans are the most charitable people in the world) and so, you are in favor of a gov't decree for what people will not willingly do by choice. There's a word for that, and it's tyranny.

This is not me being discivil in this debate: it is the terms of the debate. The only way to make gov't as much a power 'for the greater good' as the gov't you wish to impose is to make it a gov't that has the power to do lots of things that fall well short of 'the greater good'. Power is not neutral; it is a tool. Gov't cannot be trusted with such tools. At least, not gov'ts of free men.

FTR, the founding fathers created a republic EXACTLY to avoid that kind of majority rules, mob rule. The checks are supposed to be in place to prevent just this kind of manipulation of gov't. Our framers sought determinedly to create a gov't in a straightjacket when it comes to the exercise of power against its citizens. That straightjacket is what allowed America to take its place as the pre-eminent world power.

If you can use the gov't to beat down others with YOUR choices, then others can use the power of gov't to beat YOU down with THEIR choices.

The result: a very polarized gov't where it matters very much which party is in charge.

The gov't has no right or business to be an arbiter of any of this. Point of fact, the gov't is holding more people down in poverty, today, than the free market could liberate FROM poverty, if given a chance.

I don't share your faith in gov't. I hold faith with the common man, once liberated from the shackles of gov't. Gov't is a tool, and it has historically and inherently been a tool for tyranny.

I would rather the power of gov't be shackled than for me to be shackled TO the power of gov't. I guess it's a different philosophy.

But, Thomas Jefferson summed it up best in a quote I used earlier in this thread: a gov't free to use power for 'the greater good' is a gov't free to use power for all kinds of evil. In fact, isn't that EXACTLY what you think about the Bush Administration?

The Bush Administration is EXACTLY the gov't you have asked for: one with all sorts of power over you and your life. You just didn't count on the votes for the leader of the gov't of your choosing to be so consistently against those that share "YOUR" beliefs.

Oh, I know: 2008 will be different. No, it won't. No matter who wins, it's more of the same.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Spidey's mom]

Oldies but goodies . . . .

"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." —Ronald Reagan

"Democrats tend to look to the government for the solution to the problem. Republicans tend to look to the government as the source of the problem". . . . (unknown source but said my many).

The Difference Between A Republican & A Democrat

Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.
The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5..