The Welfare State - prepare to meet thy doom?

If you carry a credit card balance, if you are making car payments and don't have at least a half year's pay in the bank then you had better not opt out of SS because you are already demonstrated that you can't handle money.

 

I finally gave in and got a debit card, and I've never financed a car. With the exception of a house, if I can't afford it, I don't buy it, and if we move, I may have enough cash to pay for the house.

Now, I don't have many of the necessities such as cable TV, a new car every couple of years, the latest shoe fashion, etc., but I do beleive in personal responsibility.

There's even a man here in town who was hit by a drunk driver, and instead of leeching off the government, he put himself through school to become a CPA.

If someone truly cannot work, support them.

If you're hungry, ask me for a sandwich, but don't steal from me under threat of death.

 

Good for you, HoG, because you know how to handle cash money. You are in a small minority. You and I will do OK even if the bubble pops.

 

If the bubble pops, cash will become pretty useless. It's not based on anything real.

(I'm assuming you're talking about the big bubble and not just the real estate bubble.)

 

Many if not most poor people in developed countries with readily available employment like the US are poor because of decisions and value judgments they have made. All adult poor people continue to be poor in nations like the US due to their own decisions unless they are somehow physically or mentally disabled. Even then, we have gone to great lengths to help them be employable.

So to answer your rhetorical question, the vast majority of the poor in America could make a better life for themselves if they viewed it as their own responsibility and of value worth sacrificing for.

I kind of separate from the people I typically agree with on Mexican immigration. Yes. I agree that the law should be enforce but also that a) the law should be changed in favor of these people... who are every bit as "American" as anyone else who saw the US as a land of opportunity and b) it simply isn't practical to round up all the illegals that are here.

That said, I worked with alot of Mexican workers in my last job. They were dedicated, hard-working, disciplined employees. By contrast, we tried to employ natural born Americans... at 20% more we could expect to get about half the work and 10 times the attitude.

I'm not worried about the long term effects of illegals. They work hard. They learn. They save. They invest... It is only a matter of time before we might be looking at Mexico as the land of opportunity.

The "cannots" should be taken care of by churches and private charities. The "will nots" should be afforded opportunity and the choice to make their way or do without.

 

Dickens' novels demonstrate nothing more nor less than the fact that he was a good writer. Further, failure when comparing across time is a purely subjective, speculative game.
There is no merit in the notion that the welfare state would have been able to resolve those problems and might very well have sunk the whole ship... You just can't decide you don't like some of the effects of a system then and use it as proof that a different system would have done one iota better.

Why do we have welfare? A great number of reasons I suppose. One would be the rise of the "social gospel". Another would be the rise of humanism. Another the materialistic manifestation of social engineering.... all of which are premised upon a faulty view of the nature of man.

From the more benign point of view, people want to see other people get help and have bought the lie that gov't can do it better and more compassionately than these caring individuals could do on their own.

Capable... or willing? I have had "poor" people even after welfare reform turn their noses up at $10/hour jobs because they were expected to actually show up on time and do good quality production. They walked away. Why? Because they have been systematically taught by the purveyors of the welfare state/mentality that they deserve a living just because they want/need one.

The question is: Could you really get no job at all or only that you couldn't get one you were satisfied with? BTW, did you ever consider starting your own enterprise?

Where did this mentality come from that businesses much less governments exist to insure we have a job that we like/want?

Right. But after a few generations, people begin to be unemployable... they no longer think the effort of going to work is worth even a fairly significant improvement in living standards. That is part of the reason the welfare reform of the 90's was so necessary.

 

A single, transparent sales tax is the most fair and efficient scheme available... unfortunately, politicians don't what fair and definitely don't want transparent.

A sales tax would be born by the whole and not by the individual. IOW's, businesses/wealthy would cease to be tax collectors and start being tax contributors.

 

First of all, you're confusing the Fed with state and local governments. The Fed's hands are supposed to be tied in most areas, except those powers that are explicitly granted to it.

Also, like I said, what's wrong with requiring people on welfare to work? Make them move the pile of rocks from point a to point b. This would serve two purposes: 1. And incentive to find a better job (welfare is a disincentive*) 2. Keep those who are playing the system from doing so. (Why would a drug dealer who gets welfare because he has no recordable income go to work go get welfare?)

*There are several examples of welfare being a disincentive. For one thing, a family of four, working up to the limit at which they can receive full benefits and getting the full benefits would have to earn $47,000 per year before taxes to equal what they are being given.

But, to repeat my question: What's wrong with expecting someone to work for it?

 

Half the ecomony is under the table and still would be if we went to a sales tax.

Sales tax would shaft the old people who spent their entire lives paying income tax.

I propose going to 100% electronic money (instead of 90% which is what we have) and going to an electronic transfer tax.

 

Have you ever done research on businesses that started during the early 80's? Among them you would find a couple of low capital ventures... Apple and Microsoft.

Did you ever considering making a legal agreement to work for a specific period of time if given the chance for one of those low level jobs? If you weren't willing to do that, weren't those employers fully justified in denying you a job? And if that was your choice... then why should it be the responsibility of the one who took the job and the employer to bear the cost of your choice?

Further, and I am really trying not to be harsh to you, who made the choices that caused you to be "mortgaged up to the hilt"?

What I see in your post is that you made choices and took risks as we all do then when they didn't work out, you expect that those whose decisions did work out should absorb the consequences.

 

Matt: I appreciate your comments.

There are huge culture differences between the United States and Europe when it comes to these issues. While there are some exceptions most Americans do not have the expectations of their government that you do. Matt, you said your government provides services. Over here we really don’t look for that on the same level.

The US constitution lays out our expectations that the government will:
1. Establish justice and internal tranquility (make and enforce laws).
2. Provide for the common defense.
3. Promote the general welfare.
4. Secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity.

Now that “promote the general welfare” line gets abused a lot but most Americans don’t look to the federal government to do much. Our state and local governments do things like build schools and roads. Most hospitals are built by private foundations.

I would love to opt out of social security. Not because I am very good with finances like Bill and Hope, but because I really don’t expect to get a dime out of it. I am over 25 years away from collecting and I don’t think it will still be there. Around here we do a lot of benefits for families when someone gets sick. We had one for a cancer victim last year where we raised nearly $15,000. Of course it all went to the hospital and funeral home.

I don’t think this is the case in Great Britain and most of Europe. The firm I work for is a British company and we have major disagreements with the upper management (mostly British) about charitable work. We live in a very impoverished area and most charitable organizations like our local food bank are financed by donations not taxes. Most people who are working and most business give to these things freely but we cannot. Our upper management thinks the government should pay for those things and does not want to give. While every other company around us gives corporate funds to the food banks, united way, youth sports teams, and other community projects we can’t. It gives us a bad reputation in the community but we do what we can. We take up a lot of collections from individual employees and slide a few things under the budget radar.

There are also huge differences in the way our economies work. I don’t think most Europeans understand how easy it is to open your own business in the U. S. Our local unemployment is under 5% and we regularly keep unfilled jobs because we have no applicants.

Back to your original question, I think the welfare state is going to go through a lot of change in the next 50 years. I am worried about the survival of both our nations as we know them today.

 

Yes.

Who is to say what is "bad luck"? BTW, as a Christian that believes in the sovereignty of God I reject the concept of "luck" altogether.

If you said that was "bad luck" and wanted me to pay for it having had "good luck"... then I could just as easily turn around and say: "I had the wisdom to make a better investment though perhaps not affording me as fancy house as his. Now that Matt faces the consequence of his more extravagent/less careful choice.... Why should I be punished?

Christianity and "luck" are incompatible. Nothing happens purely by chance. God is in control.

But we aren't talking about what an assembly of believers should do. The assembly should do as the church in Acts did when they hit on rough financial times- they shared all things in common.

What we are talking about is what the gov't should do... and we should not confuse the two.

What is that? That it is wrong to forcefully take from those who make the right decisions in order to bail out those who make the wrong decisions? I am sorry your feel that way but using one's wants or even needs as a justification for stealing from another is just wrongheaded. And it matters not whether you rob the person yourself or do it by proxy through government.

The NT model would have been for you to turn to those in your church for help. They should have willingly provided it... and you should have been willing to reciprocate.

There is no NT model for the welfare state.

 

That's why I support the Fair Tax. (Click the link and read about it.) It does not increase the cost of anything, it is merely taxed a different way, and it's fair an equal across the board. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy things.

Necessities are exempted through a reimbursement of the taxes that is figured on the poverty level; so, basically, everyone pays the same rate on every penny they make above the poverty level.

 

Who is to say what is "bad luck"? BTW, as a Christian that believes in the sovereignty of God I reject the concept of "luck" altogether.</font>[/QUOTE]And I believe in the sovereignty of God too. But I also believe in human free will and there will be occasions when certain other humans act in a way which will have a detrimental effect on you eg: hiking up interest rates. The 'certain other humans' in this case were the UK Treasury officials. Now, unless you're claiming that God somehow compelled those officials to act that way, then I'd say that decision was down to human free will, wouldn't you?</font>[/QUOTE] Theirs and yours... although none of those decisions were made outside of God's permissive will.

Why do you regard yourself as being punished by paying taxes to pay for services from which everyone - including you - benefits?</font>[/QUOTE] Because I would not be benefiting- you would.

Now if you needed help and came to me, I wouldn't turn you away. But it is an entirely different matter when you send the gov't to pick my pocket... perhaps because pride will not allow you to acknowledge responsibility and to ask for help.

No. Because national defense does serve all of us at the same time.

Scott: Christianity and "luck" are incompatible. </font>[/QUOTE]And that's why I questioned your stance as being unChristian - because it presumes that people are at the mercy of luck </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. We are "at the mercy" of the consequences of the decisions that we make. We are accountable. None of us ever have perfect understanding... but removing the consequences for failure is not the same as removing the failure.

See my interest rate example above.</font>[/QUOTE] And some people looked at the signs and considered the risks and made wise investments. Others either ignored the risks or lacked the wisdom to see them and made mistakes.

Those in control of interest rates don't just arbitrarily make decisions. They make fairly deliberate decisions based on information that you can largely glean by reading the news.

Scott:What is that? That it is wrong to forcefully take from those who make the right decisions in order to bail out those who make the wrong decisions?</font>[/QUOTE]No, that it is wrong to acquiesce in the poverty of others and adopt an "I'm alright Jack, I've made all the right decisions and you're poor because you've obviously made the wrong decisions,</font>[/QUOTE] Are you saying that some didn't make successful decisions and others made failing decisions? Are you saying that those who made poor decisions bear no responsibility for those decisions?

That is utterly ridiculous.

I said nothing about being morally superior. I did mention wisdom though... and diligence and prudence and a generous helping of not making risky grasps for things more expensive than you can handle.

The "rot in the gutter" comment is a heinous false allegation. Nothing I have written communicates a lack of personal concern for those in need or for you personally. You made a mistake. You should learn from it and those with means within the church should have helped you. But government SHOULD NOT be in the business of rescuing people from the consequences of their personal choices especially those based on personal desires.

For instance, had you bought a more humble apartment: a) you might not have been caught with negative equity and b) you probably could have gotten rid of it easier. That was a decision you made. I don't mind you taking risks to have nice things... as long as you take responsibility for those risks and don't demand money from my pocket when the risks have negative consequences.

Right now my wife and I know people who have borrowed to the hilt. It would be easy to look at them in jealousy because they have nicer things than we have. We could in fact have them... but we don't want to be caught in a bad financial situation so we accept a lower standard of living than our credit would actually afford us.

We're behaving responsibly. They're not. But guess what? If they some day declare bankruptcy... we along with others who have consistently made responsible, level-headed, conservative choices will share the costs... even after we didn't share in the benefits of their having lived beyond their means.

I am not saying that you were this reckless. I am saying that we all must bear the weight of our own decisions rather than attempting to pawn negative consequences off on others.

Actually it is you that have demonstrated a "holier-than-thou" attitude for my having dared to say that government shouldn't take from one person to relieve another of their responsibility. It was YOU that insenuated that because I don't believe in the nanny state that I must believe in letting the poor or those hit with tough circumstances "rot in the gutter".

Nope. It is profoundly unchristian to borrow money in a way that overextends you then when that risk doesn't pan out use government to pick the pocket of your neighbor to pay the costs of the bad decision.

Indeed!!! A man gave talents to his servants... the one who made bad investments wasn't rewarded by getting a share from those who made wise investments, was he?

However, He goes on to illustrate that Christians have a personal responsibility to help the poor. NOWHERE in that text does He make even the faintest allusion to the idea that Christians should use government to steal from those who have and give it to those who have not. He makes relief of the poor and charity a personal responsibility.

What I am saying is in perfect agreement with both things taught in this chapter. What you are saying is in disagreement with both.

It's not stealing if it is within the law - which taxation is.</font>[/QUOTE] Stealing is stealing whether legitimized by statute or not. Hiring someone (in this case politicians and tax collectors) to steal for you is every bit as immoral as stealing yourself.

Are taxes legitimate? Yes. For some things they are... but not for wealth redistribution and certainly not for relieving people of the consequences of their "free will" choices.

The agreement of politicians or even a democratic majority does NOT make something morally right or even naturally legal.

They were poor and/ or unemployed in the main too. They did have a credit union but there was simply not enough in the pot to go round.</font>[/QUOTE] The NT says that they shared all things in common. Jesus taught that we should depend on Him in faith. You are promoting dependence on a humanistic ideal of gov't. over the scriptural model.

I get it just fine. The system I describe did work for about 150 years in the US... taking a rag tag, disjointed ensemble of people who had just fought what amounted to a civil war to the most powerful economic nation the world has ever seen.

The more we move away from those basic biblical truths... the more fragile and risky and ultimately "unfair" our situation becomes.

See Matt 25 again. Even if there wasn't a NT model, so what? </font>[/QUOTE] So what? Because there is a NT model. I have shown it to you. The church and individual Christians are to take responsibility for the poor and downtrodden. When gov't steps into that arena they are usurping a God commanded mission of the church.

That is debatable. However, there is no NT model against it... as there is against the welfare state.

Au contrare. The taxes that Jesus agreed they should pay went to the Romans... who paid the occupying troops. Paul's uses word pictures that allude to the wages due a soldier. David raised an army and paid for it with taxes... and was not condemned. In fact, throughout the OT historical books this is the case and nothing in the NT withdraws the authority from gov'ts for maintaining an army.