Weekly socialist meetings indoctrinating the faithful

[Slartibartfast]

Would you give if it weren't taken out of your taxes?

I would, but I would probably not be as happy about it.

Edit: Groucho gives some of the reasons why in the following post.

 

[Groucho]

Just because a majority favor something does not make it right. Voting to plunder the prosperous at gunpoint and give it to those who, in quite a few cases don't even TRY to get ahead, is a world of difference from voluntary charity.

To say otherwise is most disingenuous.

Just because a majority favor something does not make it right. I agree, especially when the majority wants to take away the rights of the minority.

Deciding how to raise and spend money, however, is hardly the kind of "tyranny of the majority" the founders worried about.

There are MANY things our government spends money on that I disagree with. Subsidies to the oil companies, million dollar contracts with Halliburton, buying military planes that don't work and no one wants...

So I vote for any politician I can find who might do something about that.

But what you don't see is me whining and saying that my money is being taken from me at gunpoint to be used for things I disagree with. That's what a democracy is all about -- sometimes I will disagree with what the majority may want.

 

[Josie]

I would, but I would probably not be as happy about it.

Edit: Groucho gives some of the reasons why in the following post.

What did he say was a reason why you woudn't be happy about giving freely?

 

[Goshin]

Just because a majority favor something does not make it right. I agree, especially when the majority wants to take away the rights of the minority.

Deciding how to raise and spend money, however, is hardly the kind of "tyranny of the majority" the founders worried about.

There are MANY things our government spends money on that I disagree with. Subsidies to the oil companies, million dollar contracts with Halliburton, buying military planes that don't work and no one wants...

So I vote for any politician I can find who might do something about that.

But what you don't see is me whining and saying that my money is being taken from me at gunpoint to be used for things I disagree with. That's what a democracy is all about -- sometimes I will disagree with what the majority may want.

There is no Constitutional authority for forcible wealth redistribution.

 

[TurtleDude]

The fact that a portion of my taxes are going to help those who have less than I do is one of the main reasons having taxes does not bother me.

that my taxes are used to buy the votes of dem voters and that my taxes are used to expand the dependent class is my main reason for hating taxes

 

[Josie]

Does welfare pull people out of poverty or keep them in it? Maybe that should be a different thread.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What did he say was a reason why you woudn't be happy about giving freely?

Those were examples of spending that produces no societal good. And before you try and link that back to social spending, please consider that the majority of social spending is useful, its only a small portion that is wasted via fraud and abuse. Also, charities are also subject to fraud and abuse.

 

[Groucho]

There is no Constitutional authority for forcible wealth redistribution.

Ah. And now I get to ask you what law school you went to.

 

[Josie]

Those were examples of spending that produces no societal good. And before you try and link that back to social spending, please consider that the majority of social spending is useful, its only a small portion that is wasted via fraud and abuse. Also, charities are also subject to fraud and abuse.

A small portion is wasted? Seriously???

 

[Groucho]

Does welfare pull people out of poverty or keep them in it? Maybe that should be a different thread.

Well, remember: social spending isn't just "welfare" (which usually is temporary unemployment benefits, food stamps and the like). Social spending also includes money for education, health care, libraries, and so on.

Jesus, of course, had no idea about democracy. He advised people to pay their taxes and I doubt he told them to aid the poor unless it was done through their elected representatives. That's the whole point of this article.

 

[Groucho]

A small portion is wasted? Seriously???

Compared to other governmental spending, yes. There are millions of dollars that have disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all know of plenty of examples of huge chunks of money being wasted in our government.

While there are obviously people who take advantage of welfare to get an extra few hundred bucks a month, more welfare money is lost because of doctors who bill for procedures never done and other institutionalized crime. Should we excuse any of it? Of course not. But most of the money actually does help people.

 

[Slartibartfast]

A small portion is wasted? Seriously???

Food stamps:
The Food Stamp Program is Effective and Efficient — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Food Stamp Program is efficient and effective. Program integrity has improved dramatically in recent years and food stamp error rates are now at an all-time low. USDA data show that over 98 percent of food stamp benefits go to eligible households. The low error rate is a major accomp*lishment for a large benefit program that is administered by thousands of eligi*bil*ity workers in state and local offices across the country.

So a 2% problem rate there.

Medicare & Medicaid:
Fraud statistics

Medicare and Medicaid made an estimated $23.7 billion in improper payments in 2007. These included $10.8 billion for Medicare and $12.9 billion for Medicaid. Medicare’s fee-for-service reduced its error rate from 4.4 percent to 3.9 percent. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2008)

Social Security:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0309.pdf
DC seems to be the worst state, with 453+165(total: 618) reports of fraud and abuse per 100,000 population (less than 1% problem rate)

 

[Slartibartfast]

Compared to other governmental spending, yes. There are millions of dollars that have disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all know of plenty of examples of huge chunks of money being wasted in our government.

While there are obviously people who take advantage of welfare to get an extra few hundred bucks a month, more welfare money is lost because of doctors who bill for procedures never done and other institutionalized crime. Should we excuse any of it? Of course not. But most of the money actually does help people.

Try billions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm

 

[ptif219]

Does Obama do recess appointments so his choice will not be asked about wealth redistribution?

Obama's new Medicare Czar supports wealth redistribution and opposes free markets

Dr. Berwick During a 2008 speech on the British health care system, he asserted that wealthy individuals must redistribute their wealth to those less fortunate in order to help pay for health care costs:

Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.

At that same speech, Berwick insisted that we move away from the free market system and leave more power in the hands of political leaders:

Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It is a popular idea that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will do a better job at designing care than leaders with plans can do. I do not agree. I find little evidence anywhere that market forces bluntly used that is just consumer choice among a ray of products with competitors fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need.

Dr. Berwick is also a proponent of single-payer health care and he seems to have no problem with the rationing of care:

We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or treatment] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Does Obama do recess appointments so his choice will not be asked about wealth redistribution?

Obama's new Medicare Czar supports wealth redistribution and opposes free markets

Dr. Berwick During a 2008 speech on the British health care system, he asserted that wealthy individuals must redistribute their wealth to those less fortunate in order to help pay for health care costs:

Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.

At that same speech, Berwick insisted that we move away from the free market system and leave more power in the hands of political leaders:

Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It is a popular idea that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will do a better job at designing care than leaders with plans can do. I do not agree. I find little evidence anywhere that market forces bluntly used that is just consumer choice among a ray of products with competitors fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need.

Dr. Berwick is also a proponent of single-payer health care and he seems to have no problem with the rationing of care:

We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or treatment] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.

I pretty much agree with all of those stances in regards to health care. I think the free market is great, except in cases like insurances or health care where its not working.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There are MANY things our government spends money on that I disagree with. Subsidies to the oil companies, million dollar contracts with Halliburton, buying military planes that don't work and no one wants...

What! You want to discriminate against corporations? Why, corporations are people, too, you know. The SCOTUS says so, and also says that they have a right to free speech just as much as the rest of us do. Since money talks, and their language is money, corporations can talk all they want, and purch.. I mean support as many politicians as they like.

Would Christ have us turn away a poor, downtrodden British Petroleum after it fell on hard times due to an accident? Would He not have us to give our charity to General Motors? If the US is a Christian nation, how could we do otherwise?

 

[ptif219]

I pretty much agree with all of those stances in regards to health care. I think the free market is great, except in cases like insurances or health care where its not working.

So you like the socialist style of wealth redistribution just like Obama. The government decides how much of your money you should keep

 

[Groucho]

So you like the socialist style of wealth redistribution just like Obama. The government decides how much of your money you should keep

WE are the government. WE elect them. WE can vote them out.

It always seems to me that when the government does things conservatives like and liberals don't, it's because it's the "will of the people" but yet when the opposite happens, the government is a tyrannical overlord crushing individuals.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you like the socialist style of wealth redistribution just like Obama. The government decides how much of your money you should keep

Thats one of the reasons I voted for him.

 

[Gabriel]

Politicians are your paid servants. When you elect them to enact their platform whatever it is they are supposed to try to do it. Otherwise they are against the people.

 

[Geo Patric]

Good lord. :roll:


There is a vast difference between private charity, freely and willingly given, and government-mandated wealth redistribution or general economic activity.

yes, there certainly is and I am glad that you make the point.

charity is paternalistic and condescending... it elevates the giver and denigrates the receiver. any group that depends on charity to provide for those in need is, virtually by definition, fascist.

Jesus rejected materialism in the form of accumulation of goods. His followers promoted the notion of shared property to the benefit of all. They recognized the right to essential needs or all people as well as a right to personal dignity. They did not oblige the poor to prostrate themselves before the rich.

Jesus would weep all over again to see 'preachers' prating in his name enrich themselves and to see how his principles of love have been perverted into shaming others into subjugation so the self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thous can feel good about distributing crusts in the richest culture the world has ever known.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

WE are the government.

i can only click 'thanks' once... and that seemed insufficient.

thanks again. please, keep saying it.

geo.

 

[ptif219]

Thats one of the reasons I voted for him.

I didn't vote for him because of his lies. I find it hard that people in this country want a socialist government that will steal your money by force

 

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't vote for him because of his lies. I find it hard that people in this country want a socialist government that will steal your money by force

I am pretty sure I remember my elections and my thoughts about it from 2008 accurately.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

yes, there certainly is and I am glad that you make the point.

charity is paternalistic and condescending... it elevates the giver and denigrates the receiver. any group that depends on charity to provide for those in need is, virtually by definition, fascist.

Jesus rejected materialism in the form of accumulation of goods. His followers promoted the notion of shared property to the benefit of all. They recognized the right to essential needs or all people as well as a right to personal dignity. They did not oblige the poor to prostrate themselves before the rich.

Jesus would weep all over again to see 'preachers' prating in his name enrich themselves and to see how his principles of love have been perverted into shaming others into subjugation so the self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thous can feel good about distributing crusts in the richest culture the world has ever known.

geo.

I'm just saying, as a non religious person.
You're missing whole swaths of the Bible which state that wealth accumulation and fiscal prudence are good things.