The Welfare State - prepare to meet thy doom?

Sorry if I misunderstood your this last post LE. Please feel free to correct my misconceptions about your complaints.

 

Actually, I posted my rant above in the wrong thread. Just realized it was supposed to go on the gasoline prices thread. Oops.

You should know from my postings by now, Scott, that I am against wealth distribution. I'm one of those poor working stiffs supporting the lazy bunch.

No, but they have a right to demand the government do something about the gas gouging that is going on and they also have a right to demand that their government not squander their tax money, like has been going on for years.

But to address your points:

You can't always "trade down" an auto, especially if you are legally locked into a lease or a loan.

Part time isn't always feasible for everyone, when there are child care or elder care issues to contend with.

Moving closer to work isn't always an option, either, if you are locked into a lease or a 30-year-note. Sometimes people originally bought a house close to their job only to lose that job and having to find something else - farther away from home. For starters.

 

The government makes about three times as much on gas as the gas companies do. Instead of crying about the gas companies (free market), why not demand the government quit taking so much?

Now, I'm all for gas taxes, as long as they go to their designated purposes. (Maintaining roads, etc.) But, Exxon-Mobil only had an 8% profit margin. Conoco-Phillips only had a 7.4% profit margin.

The gas prices are controlled by the market, not the gas companies themselves, and the government needs to stay out of it.

BTW, if a gas company is truly gouging, that is already against the law, and they do prosecute.

 

No, but they have a right to demand the government do something about the gas gouging that is going on and they also have a right to demand that their government not squander their tax money, like has been going on for years.</font>[/QUOTE] I agree mostly with the first point and completely with the second point.

If the end result of high gas prices were a shift to alternative fuels then the short term pain would probably be worth it. Even if it somehow moved public sentiment to support domestic oil production, I would consider it somewhat positive. The problem is the vice created by powerful lobbies all competing for their piece of gov't power. The deals that end up satisfying both environmentalists, oil companies, and other power players will almost always hurt the rest of us.

Depends again on the decisions made in the past. That said you can trade down but you may not be able to trade down to something you think meets your minimum standard.

We made a conscious decision 7 years ago to have a van and a gas mileage car for me to drive to work in. So, I drive a 97 Sentra that gets 40 miles to the gallon. Since prices have gone up... as uncomfortable and inconvenient as it is... we stuff our three kids in the back of that Sentra much of the time now when we travel (we drive 30 miles each way to church 3 times per week). We don't particularly like doing this. My daughter is 16 and pretty much full grown. My 13 year old is about 5'9", 165. My 11 year old is about 5'6"... There isn't a whole lot of space left in the back of that Sentra.

Part time what?

Leases expire and houses can be sold. The point is that people have options... but some are just so distasteful that they don't want to consider them... they'd rather complain and try to get the guvmint to fix it for them.

Yes. That happens. So now- What can be done about it?

 

Nothing, Scott. You and I both know the government lacks the will to fix anything and our elected officials are the biggest welfare recipients of all.

 

Isn't it remarkable how far we've come on that account? We were founded by very wealthy, privileged men who risked the lives and fortunes to win their own rights and liberties as well as those of their less fortunate neighbors. They were men who spoke and meant noble words.

Now, a very wealthy and privileged political class enhance their lives and fortunes by confiscating the rights and liberties of both poor and rich while convincing each to blame the other. Their words must be deciphered and distilled to determine what they might be up to.

 

It's no reward, when the people are still in poverty, and also face the social stigma of it. (Some don't care, but then once again, alot of this rhetoric is overblown anyway).

But that is what a lot of the rhetoric sounds like. Especially the focus on the poor and their wrong choices.

That wasn't the point. The point was once again, that it is not all by "right choices" and hard work.

There are all kinds of loopholes, that are even ambiguous or cloudy as to whether they are illegal or not. They "should be" punished, but the way it is set up, they can often get away with it dure to technicalities; buying their way out, etc. And either way, the point is, it is not all by honest hard work. One example that just came to me is the cheapness of quality of many items today, and how you have to buy new sooner. (especially electronics). That is the thing that reminds me more than anything else hof the ironly of focusing on welfare, while ignoring the sins of the powerful.

The opportunity is not to their credit. What they did with it may be, but the point is, there is opportulity not shared by all.

You and Hope are fixated with "divesting someone" and "people not trying", but no one here is arguing for that, as far as I know.
And "Earning something" CAN be greed and covetousness when it is a race to try to get to the top, and gain power, especially if it is to the detriment to your own health and family. This IS coveting what someone has: a position; whether you get it FROM the person, or you are able to get it beside the person. Just think of the "rat races" to the top of any company or industry. Nobody's receiving handouts from anyone; they are climbing up through their own effort, but it is still greedy and covetousness. There is no separate standard for the powerful.

But many conservatives who use some of this rhetoric seem to recognize no such thing.

But that should not be used to try to explain poverty today, when God has not specifically said that particular people we see today are poor because God is doing some test on them; at the same time as trying to say it is just their poor choices compared to the diligence of the rich.

Now remember your denial in the second quote above. This is one of those statements that makes it sound like "all rich/well-off simply got to their position by doing all the right things" which you denied.

Nobody here is. There are probably relatively few out there who do, as most conservative Christians are taking the oposite view. I don't know why you two are so obsessed with this. It looks like a defensive reaction, because when this massive wall of Conservative rhetoric is knocked down, you feel someone is going to come and take or require something of you. No one here seems to be doing that.

Same thing different word. "Luck" and "Fortune" are simply more popular terms for these mysteries of consequence. (While "probability" sounds more scientific).
The ppoint, once again, was "unknown and out of control of the person", and even the result of certain "choices" falls into that description.
What you seem to be insuinuating, is because an outcome can be connected to a "choice", then it's "just too bad; you did it to yourself, unlike this person over there who made the 'right choice", and some sort of merit is still given to the well-off. Remember, once again, we are not trying to say that just because a person may have had a bad outcome he couldn't control, then we should just take someone else's money and give it to him. But my concern, is that the rhetoric needs to have much more compassion than that. It is all defensive, and then ends up demonizing the person who has fallen into hard times.

Yeah, that's when bad things happen (and still, many conservatives manage to blame the liberals, taxes, welfare, etc.). However; I was referring to when good things happen. That's when that is convenient.

Whatever; same connotation. Same merit unconditionally heaped on those who did do better.

That's not everyone's motive, but it is a handy defense mechanism for conservatives who often act like this system is perfect. (Once again, many do bmale their disappointments on others).

With the reforms, how much do you think is going on? Even so, it takes time for that to change, and people are so fixated on it, no amount of change will ever satisfy. They will always find some way to blame the poor for aking their tax dollars, and next in line is immigration (whether they work or not!)

With a lot of people it is class, though they may not be conscious of it. The fact that they fixate on what the poor are doing wrong, and assume such a fair system that it is always a person's own fault because of their choices and defend upper classes shows this.

And I have long acknowledged that there are people like this. But how many do you think there really are? Is it enough to complain as much as people are, as if, once again they are eating up 98% of the money.

 

Today, most companies would not even leave anything for anyone to pick up, as it would be "lost profit". Only if their was some tax break incentive, or something like that.

At that point, I was not saying people should not have to work, but rather addressing the attitude of some, that because I like to work those kinds of hours, than anyone else who doesn't is lazy, and deserves whatever economic misfortune they get. This still begs the question of why anyone has to work like that to make ends meet in a society of plenty, while some people live like kings (including ungodly entertainers, sports figures and others who don't produce any necessary goods) and people think it is all fair, just because these people have their name on a payroll, rather than receiving from the govt. and any addressing of the issue is accused of being a plot to take away someone's money and give it to the "undeserving" poor.

I'll have to check that, but is GDP the tax revenue alone? If not, that may explain the different numbers I got. Plus, "welfare" may mean more than what people think of (Which is "AFDC-Aid to Families with Dependant Children", which is only ONE program out of several others, including SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, programs for farmers, etc.). It is ADFC, I believe, that was 2-4%, but I'll check what that site says.
Still, that does not justify all the anger towards it, as if once again, it was ALL the tax money, and it still ignores corporate welfare, and many other ways the rich milk a lot of money off of this country.

 

OK, it's 18 minutes past my preferred bed time, so I'm going to respond to a couple of statements and then go to bed. These are quotes from different people, I know, but they're not attributed.

If it's an illegal tax, and I don't pay it, then I have not broken the law any more than if I refused to pay off the mafia not to destroy my store.

If I don't pay this illegal tax (both the tax and what it's spent on are illegal), they will come to take my home, my car, and everything else. If you (or a burglar) were to break into my home, I have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. However, when they come, they come well armed, and you better give in to their demands.

No, I was talking about illegal taxation and illegal spending. Defense is legal spending. But, if you pay attention, I speak out very strongly for the Fair Tax. (Come on, click the link! I dare you!)

That way, at least the taxation is legal, even if the spending is not.

But, I would like to see both get back to a legal way of business.

Now you're talking about corporations and not individuals. Corporations have no responsibility to people, unless they so choose. However, I do know that the big drug companies, who are widely demonized by people, donate a billion dollars worth of free drugs to poor people. At least two of them have stated publicly that they would donate more if they could deduct it from their taxes. What's wrong with that? Why aren't they permitted to exempt more?

 

Also, since it was earlier denied that the current taxes in question are the same as "what is Caesar's"; who ever said that everything Caesar was spending the money on is something we would think was legal by the same standards we use to judge our taxes? We forget that that govt. Persecuted Christians.

 

Many people seem to forget that the "ultimate authority" in the US is the US Constitution, not some man (or men) who is temporarily in office. If they violate that ultimate authority, they are not our authority; the US Constitution is.

Which brings to mind what John Jay said about being a juror: As a US citizen, you have not only the right and responsibility to judge guilt or innocence, but to judge the very laws themselves. (I know that's not a quote; it's the paraphrase.) Those judges and lawyers are not the ultimate authority, even in the courtroom.

 

It's still a manmade authority, and can even collectively be represented by "Caesar". The type of govt. authority was not Jesus' point. The disctinction was between man's kingdom and God's kingdom.

 

But, in this discussion, we are discussing the welfare state and legal vs illegal taxation, according to the highest authority in the land.

When I was sitting in a courtroom on jury duty, the judge told us that we could not use any opinion other than the law that was presented. However, a higher authority than that judge said that I had not only that right, but that responsibility. Which one do I listen to?

The same holds true with the welfare state. Other nations can be as socialistic as they want, but when we are taxed illegally for these illegal programs, according to the highest authority in the land, which one trumps?

 

Still, it is a manmade law intepreted, bent, violated, etc. by a manmade judicial system. It is still all Caesar. We are not responsible before God for what they do, though we can voice our protest. What Caesar did with the money he took from people was not justified simply because he was the highest law in the land. That would have made persecution of Christians right.