The Welfare State - prepare to meet thy doom?

[Jim1999]

Matt, more than 75% of personal bankruptcies in the USA involve medical services which can't be paid. Personal bankruptcies eventualy come out of government coffers (taxes) and creditors who have suffered financial loss.

In one form or another the reaching into the pockets of the "haves" happens in countries that would deny the Christian principle of "selling all that you have and give to the poor..."

In Canada, we see our government as being democratic with social responsibility. No one ever loses their home because they fall ill.

God bless the biblical concept of socialism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Hope of Glory]

Why do you regard yourself as being punished by paying taxes to pay for services from which everyone - including you - benefits?

For one thing, those who are successful get punished by being forced to pay a higher rate than others. That's why I like the Fair Tax. You pay no taxes up to the poverty line, then everyone, without any loopholes, pays the exact same rate. What could be more fair than that?

Now, the US Constitution is supposed to be the law of our land. Yet, when they tax and spend for things that are not permitted in the US Constitution, it's illegal, and it teaches others that it's OK to ignore the law if you don't like it.

Ponzi schemes are illegal, yet the US government forces every single one of us to participate in one.

The Bible also plainly states "no workie no eatie". Yet, no one has yet to answer my question: Would it be fair to require work in exchange for the handout?

BTW, here in the US, when you file bankruptcy, you are still left with the necessities to survive: house, car, etc. Now, you won't get to keep a million dollar house and the Ferrari, but you will get to keep the 2 BR house and the Corolla.

Now, to repeat my question that those who so devoutly support socialism (which has been proved time and time again to be a complete and utter failure):

Is it fair to expect work in exchange for the government handouts?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(In reverse order)...and the OT also contains mandates for the nation to help the poor - both the Law and the Prophets are shot through with references to it.

It was a theocracy and the duty of the religious leaders... not the political leaders. Further, the object of both the political and religious governance of OT Israel was the glory of God and building of His kingdom... that IS NOT the object of the welfare state. In fact, it would be just exactly the opposite... the building of a human kingdom where faith in and dependence upon God are not needed, ie secular humanism.

There is no more a NT model against the welfare state than there is against gun ownership.

I showed it to you in the text that YOU cited... your refusal to see it isn't my fault.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The agreement of politicians or even a democratic majority does NOT make something morally right or even naturally legal.

Define 'naturally legal' (sounds very Enlightenment/ Modernist to me)?</font>[/QUOTE] Natural law is the recognition of universal truths ascribing them to "Nature's God".

Oh, and who gets to define it? You? Me? That way lies anarchy and the end of the Rule of Law...

The first 100 years or so of US history disprove your contention that a gov't established upon preservation of the rights, liberties, and sovereignty of the individual will deteriorate into anarchy. In fact, our land when its leaders expected its morality to be governed by its religion and good people... was far more just and less criminal than at any point when your idea of gov't began to intervene.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Er...no. Quick crash-course in law: if the state (here meaning the democratically-elected government legislature) does not prohibit an action/ expressly authorises an action, then it is legal.</font>[/QUOTE] Er.... no. Quick crash-course in justice: if the state does something authorizes an action that is unjust and violates the sovereign rights of its individual citizens then while it may be "legal"... it can never be just.

Some people eg: you, may not like that but it is up to them through the democratic process to criminalise the action concerned.

If 51% say that Baptists should pay more taxes in England because of their religion... you might be able to perversely call it legal... but you could not call it lawful or just.

You assume in the remainder (ie the first part) of you post that those who suffer financial adversity do so as the result of foolish decisions made by them,

No. I assume that they are the result of their personal decisions... and they are. All of us make bad calculations at one point or another. Not all of us do so in a way that we cannot absorb the reasonably possible negative consequences.

If you live in flood plains in some places, you may not be required to have flood insurance. The amount spent on flood insurance might afford you a fancier house... but why should someone who had the foresight to accept a lesser house while paying for flood insurance be responsible for paying to have your house rebuilt when the flood comes?

of their failure to 'read the economic tea-leaves' aright.

That and their failure to account for contingencies.

I have to say that that is quite an assumption.

Absolutely no assumption at all.

There are many reasons why the consequences of people's decisions can be bad which have nothing to do with whether or not the initial decision was 'bad' or not.

Yes if you include the extraordinary. But I am not... and church assistance would be very sufficient for those instances. I am talking about considering the risks and counting the costs. Very biblical concept.

For instance, the economy may be booming and all the forecasts look good and I accordingly invest in the stock market (rather than bury my talent in the ground if you want to quote that parable).

I wise investor will always have a contingency to account for short term downturns.

Then along comes a natural disaster - Hurricane Katrina or avian flu - and the stock market crashes overnight wping out my investments and then shortly after I lose my job as a knock-on effect,

Investments are made knowing that there are risks and rewards. If you made a bundle on those investments would you turn around and distribute the proceeds to those who you expect to pick up the costs if you lose? No. You'd keep them to yourself. And rightly so.

as do many others resulting in there being too many workers for too few jobs. Are you seriously saying that I'm 'responsible' for that calamity?

No. I am suggesting that you are responsible for... YOU. I am also suggesting that if I know your need and have been blessed with the capacity to share with you... I am responsible for you. What I reject is that you have a right to use gov't to force others to take responsibility for you.

Re; your national defence example - what if I'm a pacifist who doesn't want to pay taxes to fund that?

Currently, you'd be forced to pay for it anyway. Rightly, there would be no direct taxation against an individual so if they wanted to not support the war they could avoid taxed activities.

Is that not equally theft, morally, following your argument?

No. The person is protected whether they want to pay for it or not.

However, this is an oranges and apples comparison. National defense does not intend to protect one while robbing the other. It takes from all (ideally) and protects all.

And it is correct that we all benefit from services paid for by taxation;

I have a sister-in-law who has scammed the system and been on the dole for years.... I have paid for that system. I have not... and more than likely will not ever benefit from it.

Gov't has sent her to college twice- she floundered about, squandered the grants, then quit. I paid for it... and will also pay for my own children without gov't help who will in all likelihood be very responsible, diligent students.

we all benefit from improved roads,

No objection.

better education,

According to de Toqueville, the American education system outstripped that of much more civilized Europe in the 1830's... and virtually all of the education was done by the clergy.

IOW's, according to this student of America's early success, higher literacy rates were attained with purely private, religious schools run at minimal costs than we now have spending 100's of billions with cries for more.

and, if your time comes to suffer financial disaster (which I hope it never does),

If that time comes, I can currently cut my expenses and live for at least a year without a job and probably two. If that came to and end, I stand to inherent property that has been used for subsistence farming in the past (my mom was raised on such a farm). I don't want to live that way. I don't want to make that sacrifice. But, no, I don't need to pick my neighbor's pocket... though I would probably be willing to go to my Christian neighbors and church family and ask for work I could do in exchange for assistance. Most of my neighbors are cattle farmers. I'd be willing to work for them in exchange for food.

I'm sure you'll be as grateful as I was to have a safety-net available and I,

No. Quite frankly, my mom's dad never had many possessions. They were basically subsistence farmers in the southern Appalachians. He held only a couple of jobs in his whole life and even those not for long.... my mom more than likely grew up poorer in the sense of possessions and services than you have ever been... and they NEVER accepted gov't assistance.

as a taxpayer and a Christian, would be more than pleased to pick up the tab if I were in the US.

I would much rather you keep your taxes... and offer me odd jobs at your house... help me get work... or even offer to share a meal with me or take me into your home temporarily (as the scriptures would have)... or even let me live in your storage shed.

I'd rather see it done according to the NT example and commandment. I appreciate your willingness and accept it. I reject the notion that the unwilling should be forced to help me.

 

[Scott J]

FTR Matt, I live in subjection to our gov't. I abide by its rules and while I argue for the way things should be... I don't live in resentment of the way things are... although you might misconstrue that from my arguments in favor of ideals.

I don't think the means by which you got help are just. But that system was not designed by you... and paradoxically, I am happy that you got the help you needed and am joyed that you used it to step up.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Jim1999:


God bless the biblical concept of socialism.

Does not exist unless you live in an OT theocracy and have discarded the NT altogether. There is no mandate in scripture anywhere for forcibly taking from the unwilling to give to the undeserving... so that man can glory in his own goodness. That is wealth redistribution in a nutshell.

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

what is the point of this topic again? the genocide of the poor or unemployed community?

 

[Matt Black]

The topic has deviated slightly - but interestingly - from my OP, which questioned the demographic affordability of the Welfare State.

Scott, thanks for your comments; I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree over this, another of those cross-Pond Christian cultural differences.

 

[Scott J]

No problem Matt... and if I ever need a lawyer in England, I won't hesitate to give you the business.

 

[Matt Black]

 

[Hope of Glory]

we all benefit from improved roads,

That comes from a legal tax on gasoline, and except for the US highways and Interstate highways, the Fed has no business being involved in roads.

I still don't understand why no one will answer my question:

Would it be fair to require work in exchange for the handout?

 

[Jim1999]

Hope of Glory,

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong requiring labour in exchange for benefits. If the government is just creating jobs to make people work, I don't see the point. I remember Barry Goldwater espoused that idea when he was running for president..he was soundly defeated on that point.

The fear many have is that the government will create jobs and then disqualify people who are legitimately unable to work at the time.

Wisconsin recenty cancelled their welfare program and instead encouraged private companies to hire people currently on welfare and those companies would receive some governmental benefits. I haven't heard anymore about how it is working there.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Hope of Glory]

If the government is just creating jobs to make people work, I don't see the point

One of the purposes would be to trim the rolls of those who are playing the system: Drug dealers, those working for cash under the table, those who are too lazy to work.

If a legitimate job is easier, better, pays more, or whatever, then only those who are legitimately on the welfare rolls would be on the rolls.

Another reason would be the biblical mandate that if you're going to eat, you're going to work.

Although I'm opposed to this at the Fed level because it's illegal, I'm not opposed to a helping hand at the state or local level. Quit rewarding people for bad behavior and poor choices. Give them a hand up. Give them bags of flour, blocks of cheese, tomato sauce, etc.; cut out the food stamp card.

 

[billwald]

&gt;Would it be fair to require work in exchange for the handout?

"Fair" is immaterial. Most of the people on welfare would cost more to supervise than they would produce.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by billwald:
&gt;Would it be fair to require work in exchange for the handout?

"Fair" is immaterial. Most of the people on welfare would cost more to supervise than they would produce.

Fair is not immaterial... when you're paying for it.

I object to welfare on principle. However if it must exist and I must pay for it then I want something for my investment.

I want someone who is learning the very basics of how to show up for and do a job. I want someone who is too busy to be getting into mischief. I want someone who is learning that work has value and that to receive money you must work. I want an end to generational welfare.

I DO NOT want government to continue to reinforce the idea that someone who won't work is "entitled" to the benefits produced by someone else's work.

 

[Eric B]

On the flipside of the earlier debate as to the "poor" suffering consequences of not making good choices like the well-off, not only are not all poor lazy, but not all rich/well-off simply got to their position by doing all the right things. You have heirs, for one thing, and even those who do "pull their bootstraps" all the way up, might often pull strings, or know or meet the right people, and even get into shady dealings. Most in the world are guilty of just plain greed and covetousness, whether they "earned" it or not. And let's not forget "corporate welfare". This too is often ignored by conservative rhetoric with its "fair world" language that does in fact make the rich sound "morally superior".

Then, to mix "God's sovereignty" into it the way it was done creates a double whammy. Not only are they morally superior, but it is God's will they are rich and the others poor, but still the fault of the poor for their plight (basically, the same "God's sovereignty/man's reponsibility" 'paradox' from the C vs A debate, but now scaled down to temporal earthly circumstances). This doubly justifies economic inequity. I don't know why some Christians have to make themseves such uncritical defenders of the rich. (see James 2:6-7)

As for the "luck" issue, "luck" or "fortune" I would define as "an unknown principle of a disposition of a situation to a particular outcome especially to benefit or to adversity that is out of control of the person involved"; rather than any magical or mystical (unChristian) meaning commonly associated with the words. The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person". Whatever exactly, or directly causes things, even if it is God; no one can deny that much of the circumstances of life fit this description, from our perspective.
As people, we are all subject to factors of opportunity, advantage and good fortune (talent/skill, being in the right place at the right time, etc) that are not shared by everyone else. This even affects the "consequences" of wrong choices! If you have strings to pull, or know the right people, or any other type of "safety net" (including dirty or illegal dealings), you can get away with more "mistakes", or even "laziness", such as corner cutting, etc.

So it is very convenient for people to dismiss this and say "no; it's not 'fortune'; it's because God gave us what we have, AND/OR, I just worked hard and made all the right choices; and if you don't have it it is because it is not His will AND/OR you were just lazy and squandered all of your opportunities".

Part of the point of the liberal govt. programs was to take this kinds of factors into consideration, and try to balance the situation. I'm not saying this really works, and especially not that people don't abuse it (though with the reforms here; I wonder what else people want). Still, people should have more understanding, and not make such judgments (that also end up casting onesself or the class you lean to or want to be in in a more favorable light).

 

[Hope of Glory]

You know, in thinking about the claims of those who say they can't find a job, my wife nudged my brain a bit. At one point, I was juggling 4 jobs. Now, it took a lot of effort and scheduling, and I did without a little sleep, but at that time, there were those who said, "Well, I just can't find a job".

It means that I had to get up a 3:30 AM 5 days a week, go check times. Then, I either had to get up, or I could go back to sleep for an hour. Either way, I would then go in to work, and work for 3-4 hours or so. Then, I would go eat breakfast at the buffet. (Cheaper that way.)

Then, I would go to my next job. Occasionally, the two would interfere, but my supervisor understood, since it rarely happened. I would work there anywhere from 4 to 10 hours, usually around 5 or 6 per day.

On weekends, I worked a job, which was mostly to help out a friend, from midnight until 8 AM. I didn't like the job, but she's a sweet lady, and a little extra money never hurt anything.

All this time, I was running a successful, part-time business at home, and teaching myself new skills. (Some of those new skills ever required the effort of going to school!)

Now, a couple years back, I severely injured myself, and this put me out of work for a little over a year and a half. The day my doctor released me to go back to work, I went back to work. (In all honesty, I had returned to teaching classes before he released me; I just couldn't stand not working!)

When my wife could no longer be a stay-at-home mom because of my injury, guess what? She found a job! She started out a just a little over minimum wage, and we had to cut a lot of corners, but then she moved up and pretty soon was making more in an hour than I had been before!

Right now, I am doing what is supposed to be a part-time job driving a school bus (but, I'm getting a lot of hours because no one around here wants to work, and those who do won't quit smoking dope), I teach classes, and I'm running a business that is keeping me busy much of the night. (I work while my family is asleep so I don't miss out on quality family time.)

Now, she has been offered a job elsewhere, making more money than here, and I have been offered a job that is about double what we were making together. Interestingly, they're both in the same city that is 5,000 miles away, although the jobs are about 30 miles apart. (God works in funny ways, huh?)

Oh, and I still manage to preach 2 or 3 times per week doing all this.

On the other hand, I could be sitting around watching TV and drawing a disability check.

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks, Eric, you put it far better than me.

 

[Hope of Glory]

So, bad fortune equals lack of integrity to work hard now?

"Hard work" and "good luck" are usually synonymous.

Now, I know you're going to throw the exceptioins out there, such as "he inherited it", or "he sells drugs", but first of all, why should I not leave my money to my children? And, just because one person gets something illegally, does that mean that it's wrong for the next person to succeed? That's a fallacious argument.

OK, so you have one person who loses everything in a fire. Around here, we have benefit dinners, building parties, etc., and help them get back on their feet. But, for every one like that, you have dozens who simply think they are entitled to a free ride because "times are tough", and "it's not right that I have to work more than 40 hours". (Most examples in the Bible have people working all day long, and not just parts of the day.)

But, you can choose to make excuses all you want for those who choose not to provide for themselves.

And, only one person has responded with whether or not they think it's OK to require work in exchange for the handout. I wonder why?

 

[Matt Black]

No problem -if they can work then they should. Provided that you will also ensure that, for example, the mother who has three children and is then abandoned by her husband, will have adequate childcare so that she can work.

 

[Eric B]

Hope, I'm not trying to make excuses for able bodied people, but I think that the asessment of all of these people who simply don't want to work is a bit overestimated and exaggerated. And where is this place where you have to do all of those odd jobs, and is that all that can be found there, and why? I could see why many people would not want to be bothered with all of that, but I still wonder why it is so tough over there.
And are all of these people who don't want to work on welfare or something? (I would have thought the reforms would have eliminated all of this. How do theu get by?)