The Welfare State - prepare to meet thy doom?

[Hope of Glory]

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.

Who said that it's tough? It was my choice. I could fit a few more hours (highly paid hours) into my work week and still spend time with my family.

It's called "effort" and "initiative". Of course, your respons of people being "bothered" by working says a lot.

Oh, it's too much effort; I don't want to be "bothered" by getting up at 5 AM (or insert any other lame excuse for not working).

I guess for people with an attitude like that that it's a good thing that there are responsible people like me who work hard to pay for those who don't want to be "bothered" with the inconveniences of working.

 

[Eric B]

So it's not tough, and you don't have to do all of that to survive? Then why would the other people be wrong to not want to do all of that if they don't have to? Here in the big city, you could do all of that (and that may often be all you can find, depending on your skills, and work record, making it hard for all of these "dope-smokers" you talk about to even begin to reform themselves if they tried), and with the cost of living so high, it still will not allow you to live decently.
Once again, are all these people you are talking about on some sort of assistance?

This reminds me of another point I forgot to add before, which was that even among the rich and powerful who DID "work hard" and "climb their way up", many got that way through "workaholism", (pushing themselves into 16 or more ours a day, etc) and that's not good either. Not for the family, and not for their own health. That too is a form of covetousnous, even if you did technically "earn" it, because you are just doing it for the selfish pleasure/leisure/ease and power money can buy. We often look at their "delayed gratification", (they push themselves so hard and do all of that, then can "kick back" in wealth, deservedly so) and think it is good, but in God's eyes (and often their families) it is not.

 

[Hope of Glory]

So, it's OK to steal froma workaholic? (I suppose you think that "workaholism" is a sin, despite the fact that God seems to have expected 12 hour days out of us.)

BTW, I used to live in the "big city" of Washington DC. I have lived in Savannah GA, which is a medium sized city. I now live in a city of 4,000. In all of them, there were plenty of people who felt the world owed them a living. Instead of working hard like others.

And as far as people here receiving assistance, some do, some don't. Some feel that the world owes them a living just for the simple fact that they have blessed us with being born. Others simply choose to do without some of the little things such as electrity and water. (I realize that's not an option in your "big city".)

While going to college, I worked 12 hour days and went to school full time, and still managed quality family time. We've been married 17 years, and it works quite well when God is the center.

When God is not the center, then you can justify theft because you don't want to work hard like those from whom you are stealing.

 

[Jim1999]

There is an old adage which seems to make sense:

"We work to live; we don't live to work."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Hope of Glory]

And now, instead of picking your pocket to force you through extortion to support me and my family, I am prepared to pay cash for a new car and a house. I have been a good steward and put money back so that I will not be a burden on my family nor on society when I am older. I would prefer that over the illegal Ponzi scheme they call Social Security.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:

Oh, it's too much effort; I don't want to be "bothered" by getting up at 5 AM (or insert any other lame excuse for not working).

Hmmm...if that means you're only getting four hours' sleep, then I would question that; something about your body being the temple of the Holy Spirit - four hours' sleep is not treating that temple very well...Put it this way: if I got up at 5am every morning to do an extra job, it would wreck my health, which would both dishonour God and make me unable to work at all, which would dishonour my family too.

Oh and BTW, can we stop references to taxation being 'stealing' and 'picking of pockets'; such language is inaccurate and betrays an ignorance of the law of theft.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks, Matt.
Working two mornings a 7, and the others later, (including right now, where I got off last night at almost 9, but am on my way back in now, with over an hour trip each way) has been killing me lately. (Thank goodness the schedule changes to a more consistent 9-10AM range in a month, and I am off next week)

Hope, none of what we're saying is about stealing from the rich or from you. Once again, that rhetoric is highly exaggerated. And what Jim said is right. When people live to work, it usually is not God at the center, which was my whole point. You are focusing only on the sin of those who don't work. Also, the person who works ridiculous hours may think all is fine in his family, but it doesn't mean that it is. And God may have had people in the OT work like that, but we are not in the ancient Nation of Israel, so things are very different, and not all "work" we do today is in the office (which is what I was speaking of anyway).
As far as those people "thinking the world owes them a living", are you sure of that? Do you really know what all of their circumstances are, and what is in their hearts? If only some are on assistance, how for the others is that "stealing" from you? For what reason are those on assistance able to remain that way, given welfare reforms?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Oh and BTW, can we stop references to taxation being 'stealing' and 'picking of pockets'; such language is inaccurate and betrays an ignorance of the law of theft.

If I were to walk up to you, stick a gun to your head and tell you that if you don't give me 30% of your money, I will kill you, what would you call it? So, no, I will not quit referring to illegal and involuntary taxes as anything other than stealing. I donate food to the food bank, and support people who distribute food to the needy, and I'm on the list for roadkill moose (which is split between the individual and a charity). This if voluntary, and this is the way laid out in the Bible, and this is legal according to the US Constitution which is the law of the land.

(I would not even be opposed to going back to the commodities giveaways, but that's another discussion entirely.)

If you're hungry, ask; don't steal.

As for the sleep thing, you might want to reconsider. Here's one link that is a couple of years old: Sleep Study You will note that sleeping more than 8 hours is detrimental.

There's a more recent study that I'm trying to find that says that sleeping 6-8 hours per night actually seems to increase your life expectancy. So, you get more hours and more years both. (This excludes growing children, BTW, who do need more sleep, and there is also the risk of hypertension if you sleep fewer than 5 hours.) So, my target is 6 hours per night. This certainly takes care of the ol' temple much better than sleeping my life away, doesn't it?

BTW, I was talking with a family at church last night about how out of hand the welfare state has gotten. If you study history, our nation has always taken care of single mothers and those who could not care for themselves.

Usually, the church and/or the family were expected to take care of them, as it should be. But, there were always a few who slipped through the cracks. For these, there were dormitory style places set up where the woman and her child/children would get a private room, with a common kitchen. They would arrange work, provide day care/schooling, and cook the meals at specified times. They would teach them how to budget and save, put back some of the money they earned, and then help them move back into the real world.

Why can we not turn some of our vacant schools, empty shopping malls, empty prisons, etc. into such? Perhaps build some new ones at a much cheaper rate per unit?

I once stumbled across just such a place before I moved here. It was provided by a church instead of the government, and it had a garden to grow food, and they expected help in the garden and kitchen, and help keep the place clean and tidy. Guess how many people they had living there? None. It was too much work.

Oh, and working with your wife and family is a very rewarding experience. You should try it. Not only do you spend more time together, but it teaches your kids values about integrity and hard work instead of leeching off others.

 

[Eric B]

We weren't arguing for more than 8 hours of sleep, let alone "sleeping our life away".
But some people push themselves to the point of getting much less. Me, with my irregular schedule, I end up with less than 8 on Sunday night (still exhausted now), and tthen because I get up so early on two nights, if I stay up past 11, I'm messed up the next day, often needing about 9 or 10 hours of sleep, which then is still not enough. But I still get up in 8 or 8½, hours, and hopefully, with the new schedule, my rhythm will be improved.
This does show that everyone's body is different, and can cope with different things. That's one reason I asked if you knew all the circumstances of all of these loafers you keep alluding to who don't want to work all kinds of crazy hours. Often we look at everything according to our experience, and then judge others based on what we do.

And you still keep beating up on this supposed "welfare state". Welfare was reformed already; what else do you want? There may still be a few who manage to get by, or whatever, but as it was the whole thing about taxpayers payin all this money for all of these freeloaders was blown way out of proportion, by a conservative rhetoric machine (from presidential compaigns to Limbaugh and the like) trying to defend the rich, who are the ones milking this country. They get you to feel that everyone is out to get you and your money and give it all to lazy slobs, and you believe it, and focus on one side of the picture, and ignore the other, as if it isn't there, and ignore the changes to the first side as well. As it was, Welfare before reforms was only 2-4%of the taxes! The way you and others talked for the past 25 years about "stealing your money and giving it to people who don't work", you would have thought it was 98%! And now, the fact that this has dissipated is proven by the fact that the rhetoric has now shifted to Mexican immigrants as the new whipping boy of the right, to blame for all our problems.

 

[Hope of Glory]

When God told Israel how to care for the poor, what were his instructions? Did he simply say, "Well, you go out and work and support them no matter what"? No. He told them to leave the corners of their fields so the poor could come and work to get food for themselves.

who don't want to work all kinds of crazy hours.

"Want" is a very important word there. If you're hungry and you're not making enough money, then you need to work more hours, another job, or just plain crazy hours. You might not have to do it permanently.

Personally, I enjoyed it, but my point is that it can be done and you don't have to resort to stealing from others. It's a choice.

You also might want to review your 2-4% of taxes figure. The US spends 11.5% of its GDP on welfare. That's a lot! (Here's a link to a pro-welfare site. I chose this because you can't say that it's a conservative site that skews the numbers. Click Here

Now, the military, which is a legitimate expense under the law of the land, only receives 4.05% of the GDP. ( Click Here to get a list of every nation and how much they spend on the military.)

Click Here to get a chart that shows just how little we have spent on the military for many, many years.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
And now, instead of picking your pocket to force you through extortion to support me and my family, I am prepared to pay cash for a new car and a house. I have been a good steward and put money back so that I will not be a burden on my family nor on society when I am older. I would prefer that over the illegal Ponzi scheme they call Social Security.

I take it you're in that generation which doesn't think you're going to collect any Social Security. Personally, I've paid into it for over 32 years and I plan on getting my money back. The Ponzi scheme was Bush's idea to allow private investment. The way the system works, they'd be investing the money of those who are retired not their own.

If we didn't go around starting $1 trillion wars we could fund support for the poor and those who don't have medical insurance.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The Ponzi scheme was Bush's idea to allow private investment.

Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is? It's a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul deal.

The money Bush's plan would be letting people invest would be their own money, and only a small portion of then.

Just to help you with what a Ponzi scheme is, here's a link that explains it quite succinctly: Ponzi Scheme

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Oh and BTW, can we stop references to taxation being 'stealing' and 'picking of pockets'; such language is inaccurate and betrays an ignorance of the law of theft.

If I were to walk up to you, stick a gun to your head and tell you that if you don't give me 30% of your money, I will kill you, what would you call it? So, no, I will not quit referring to illegal and involuntary taxes as anything other than stealing. </font>[/QUOTE]Except that the government doesn't hold a gun to your head and threaten to kill you; it is, after all, the 'lawful authority' per Rom 13 whereas a street mugger is quite clearly not. And, as I said before, paying taxes for defence is as much an 'involuntary tax' as for anything else; as I've also said, we pay taxes as part of the 'social contract' between us, the government and the rest of the society in which we live.

If you're hungry, ask

And what if the answer's 'no'?

As for the sleep thing, you might want to reconsider. Here's one link that is a couple of years old: Sleep Study You will note that sleeping more than 8 hours is detrimental.

There's a more recent study that I'm trying to find that says that sleeping 6-8 hours per night actually seems to increase your life expectancy. So, you get more hours and more years both. (This excludes growing children, BTW, who do need more sleep, and there is also the risk of hypertension if you sleep fewer than 5 hours.) So, my target is 6 hours per night. This certainly takes care of the ol' temple much better than sleeping my life away, doesn't it?

My point was that if you're holding down two to three jobs and getting up at 5am to do the first every day, then you will be getting less than 6 hours sleep (my target too BTW is 6-8 hours which is fine for me but my wife for example has always needed a minimum of 8 - don't forget, different people have different physical needs: Margaret Thatcher got by on 4 hours' sleep but that would kill me over time), still less seeing anything of your family which kind of renders the whole 'male head of the household' things spectacularly redundant.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that the government doesn't hold a gun to your head and threaten to kill you;

Yeah? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens when they come to take every single little thing you own. If you try to resist and defend your family and your property, it's just like Ruby Ridge, baby!

Originally posted by Matt Black:
it is, after all, the 'lawful authority' per Rom 13 whereas a street mugger is quite clearly not

The "lawful authority" in this case is the US Constitution. There are limitations imposed on the Fed for good reason. This is one of those limits. These taxes are illegal because they are in violation of the "lawful authority".

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And, as I said before, paying taxes for defence is as much an 'involuntary tax' as for anything else; as I've also said, we pay taxes as part of the 'social contract' between us, the government and the rest of the society in which we live.

See above. Federal defense is legitimate under the lawful authority of our nation. National welfare and enforced socialism are not.

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you're hungry, ask

And what if the answer's 'no'?</font>[/QUOTE]Then, you still don't have the right to steal from me. What if I need a ride somewhere, and the answer is "no"? Do I have the right to take your car any way?

Originally posted by Matt Black:
My point was that if you're holding down two to three jobs and getting up at 5am to do the first every day, then you will be getting less than 6 hours sleep (my target too BTW is 6-8 hours which is fine for me but my wife for example has always needed a minimum of 8 - don't forget, different people have different physical needs: Margaret Thatcher got by on 4 hours' sleep but that would kill me over time), still less seeing anything of your family which kind of renders the whole 'male head of the household' things spectacularly redundant.

Someone has to get up at 5AM to drive the busses that take your kids to school. Someone has to get up at 4AM to prepare breakfast for school bus drivers. (If I'm not mistaken Spurgeon, Moody, and those fellows usually began their day about 4AM in study, but don't quote me on that; I don't feel like looking it up.)

Besides, there are 168 hours in a week. Assume you spend 6 hours sleeping every night, plus a couple extra for sleeping in on one day. That leaves 124 hours. Now, let's assume that the day you sleep a couple hours extra is Sunday, and you don't work on Sunday so you can spend the entire day with your family. Let's subtract another 16 hours. What's left 108.

Now, let's subtract the 12 hours per day, six days per week that seems to be God's standard of working: That leaves you with 36 hours per week.

That translates into 6 hour per day! You can play ball with your kids, you can go fishing... You can do all sorts of things in 6 hours per day, including working an extra job for a while if you need the money!

There are also ways to combine activities. I take my laptop with me on the bus, so that during down time, I can prepare my sermons. Or while travelling on business, I have an mp3 player in the RV and I am studying. I hand out business cards and witness to people whenever I'm out and about, as does my wife.

Now, I agree that if you're working all that extra time just so you can have the nicest and newest car at all times, or make sure your house is bigger than the neighbor's, or something along those lines, then it would be idolatry. But, if you or your family has a need, why not use a couple of those 6 hour blocks per week, making some extra cash?

Or, you could spend some of it going to school to further your eduction so you can get a better job. In most cases, the work would be temporary or would be a way to move up into a higher paying position. When I was juggling the 4 jobs, we operated our business at a loss for the first 3 years. But, I'm preparing to leave on a deal that will net me 6 figures in the coming year. It takes work!

No one is going to hand life to you on a silver platter. Even God doesn't do that. "By the sweat of your face..." I think that applies to both spiritual bread and physical bread.

Oh, and anyone can train themselves to get less sleep. It's not usually a good idea to go from 10 hours per night to 4, but if you go from 8 to 7.5 and get used to that, then to 7, and so on, you will get the rest you need because your body is in sleep mode when you go to bed instead of tossing and turning all night. But, sleeping more than 8 is detrimental to your health and it's detrimental to your bank account.

Archimedes slept for two hours every night, taking 15 minute cat naps throughout the day. I did that when I was in college, and I carried a 4.0 GPA (including other schools that I have taken since then*). Now, I prefer getting 5-6 hours per night, but when something needs doing, I simply do it.

You know, my wife used to work with a fellow who had a baby. He kept saying that he needed more money (diapers, hospital bills, etc.), but his faith in God told him that he would get it. Well, he lost his faith in God over it because God didn't miraculously give it to him. However, he did turn down overtime every single week. He didn't seem to see that as a fulfillment of his request to God for more money.

God expects us to work for what we get. He told the Jews to leave the corners of their fields unharvested, but he told the poor to go get it for themselves. He didn't tell the field owners to pick it, prepare it, and give it to the poor on a silver platter.

God never condoned theft. He condoned obeying the laws of the land. In this case, these illegal taxes, Ponzi schemes, and socialist handouts are a violation of the law of the land and a violation of the plan that God set forth in Scripture.

I will speak out against this corruption that we call a welfare state at every opportunity. I will also continue to help provide for the poor in a godly and legal manner.

*As a side note, the only class that I ever did not carry a 4.0, I dropped out of. It was in Bible college, and I dropped it after I got a test that one of the questions wanted me to list the 17 steps to salvation. I gave the correct answer, received a 6 on my test, and went directly and dropped the class. I could have given the answer he wanted, but that is just pointless.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by 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,

I don't think I said they were all lazy. Did I? But they all DID make choices... sometimes reasonable choices, that didn't work out. Usually though it isn't people who made one fatal error that end up "poor" but rather a consistent pattern of poor decision making.

Hopefully Matt learned from his unpleasant experience and will avoid future situations more carefully. However, the welfare system not only punishes those who do well, it rewards consistently bad decision making.

but not all rich/well-off simply got to their position by doing all the right things.

Didn't say they did.

You have heirs, for one thing,

Who are absolutely, positively fully entitled to the wealth that their parents choose to leave them.

and even those who do "pull their bootstraps" all the way up, might often pull strings,

Pull strings? You mean cheat? If it is against the law then they should be pursued with the money we save from welfare programs.

or know or meet the right people,

That is to their credit... Do you for some reason disagree?

and even get into shady dealings.

Again, if someone does business illegally they should be punished for it.

Most in the world are guilty of just plain greed and covetousness, whether they "earned" it or not.

Earning something is an indication of neither greed nor covetousness... desiring what others have earned or else being jealous of what others earned to the extent that you think you have a moral justification for divesting them of it... are most certainly indications of greed and covetousness.

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".

I oppose corporate "welfare". It most certainly introduces unnecessary temptation to corruption in both the political and business realms.

Then, to mix "God's sovereignty" into it the way it was done creates a double whammy.

God is sovereign. He allowed Satan to make Job poor through absolutely no fault of his own.

Not only are they morally superior,

In some cases it is a case of making better moral choices. Sometimes it is simply a case of making wiser choices. In a very few cases, it is someone who takes risks consistently against the most reasonable options and wins anyway... but those instances are extremely rare.

This doubly justifies economic inequity.

Economic inequity is justified by the behaviors of those who are (legally) successful and those who consistently make choices that lead to consistent failure.

I don't know why some Christians have to make themseves such uncritical defenders of the rich. (see James 2:6-7)

I don't see how some Christians think themselves morally superior for demanding that someone else's money be taken and redistributed to the poor.

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.

Luck is a pagan concept based on the notion that God does not know what is going to happen and cannot control the outcome.

The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person".

You may be trying to get at the concept of probability. With information, we should endeavor to make reasonable choices on probability. Probability recognizes patterns that God has providentially allowed to exist... but makes no assumptions about "luck".

Further, you assume that just because recent decisions don't seem to dictate the "unlucky" outcome that somehow situations aren't products of choices. They are.

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.

Luck no. Unknown and probability. Yes.

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.

And as such, we as Christians should be generous to those in less well off than ourselves. However, this cannot become an excuse for the failure of some to achieve their best... or in some cases anything at all but rather demand that someone else provide them with a living. Nor does it justify the Robin Hood mentality of liberals.

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.

You will note that a) I have condemned illegal activities and b) mostly limited my discussion to "decisions" people make.

Someone else's success is NOT a valid excuse for another to not try. Someone else's greater advantages DOES NOT validate the failure to optimize our own.

So it is very convenient for people to dismiss this and say "no; it's not 'fortune';

Not convenient... just accurate. In fact, it is very inconvenient since when I have personally had bad things happen... I have had to look at myself rather than blame other people.

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".

OR, you continued to make bad decisions and would not make the necessary sacrifices.

When I lived in NC, we frequented a Chinese restaurant. It was fairly new but did a good business. Right before we left, I discovered that the whole family running the place lived in a 3 or 4 room "house" behind the restaurant. They were willing to make extraordinary short term sacrifices so they could gain long term benefits for themselves and their children. They were frugal. They took self-responsibility. They sacrificed short term ease for long term success.

Part of the point of the liberal govt. programs was to take this kinds of factors into consideration, and try to balance the situation.

Yes- to play God and give people a ready "It's someone elses fault" excuse for making bad decisions.... not to mention the convenient little bonus of being able to use taxpayer dollars to buy votes.

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).

An end to involuntary, unconstitutional wealth redistribution.

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).

I am not concerned with a particular class. I am concerned with what is right and what is wrong. I am concerned with what has obviously proven detrimental to the spirit of "poor" people and what the Bible prescribes as the right remedy- work and true charity.

 

[LadyEagle]

All I know is that it is being reported in the news right now that people are pawning things in pawn shops to get cash to buy gasoline so they can drive their poor selves to work. Lots of people, and probably most that have any kind of decent job, have to drive anywhere from 1 to 1-1/2 hours a day each way in heavy traffic just to get to a job. Even if you live in a large metropolitan area, a 20-minute drive can easily turn into an hour during rush hour, sitting on an Interstate. Been there, done that.

Oh, and don't chide about public transportation. The public transportation in most cities is about 20-30 years behind times. Car pooling isn't always an option, either.

The middle class is disappearing as the old saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

Even people with a work ethic get disgusted sometimes, sniffing and scratching to eke out a living, especially when they see their hard-earned money being eaten up with taxes and that tax money being squandered.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
There is an old adage which seems to make sense:

"We work to live; we don't live to work."

Cheers,

Jim

The question is about those who live not to work.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Eric B:

As far as those people "thinking the world owes them a living", are you sure of that? Do you really know what all of their circumstances are, and what is in their hearts? If only some are on assistance, how for the others is that "stealing" from you? For what reason are those on assistance able to remain that way, given welfare reforms?

I grew up in the southern Appalachians... and YES, people who have bought into the government's entitlement mentality DO think they are owed a living. I've known them all my life. My sister-in-law and her daughter are perfect examples.

 

[LadyEagle]

You are absolutely right on, Scott J. Seen it myself. It's even generational.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
All I know is that it is being reported in the news right now that people are pawning things in pawn shops to get cash to buy gasoline so they can drive their poor selves to work. Lots of people, and probably most that have any kind of decent job, have to drive anywhere from 1 to 1-1/2 hours a day each way in heavy traffic just to get to a job. Even if you live in a large metropolitan area, a 20-minute drive can easily turn into an hour during rush hour, sitting on an Interstate. Been there, done that.

Choices involved: Where to live, where to work, what to drive, whether or not public transportation, how much money must be made, etc, etc.

I'm sorry but if people are pawning things rather trading down their autos, taking PT, moving closer to work, etc then that is their prerogative... It does not entitle them to demand a benefit from the gov't.

Oh, and don't chide about public transportation. The public transportation in most cities is about 20-30 years behind times. Car pooling isn't always an option, either.

Why and why not?

The middle class is disappearing as the old saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

That isn't proven. The middle class generally "shrinks" during a recession and takes time to re-build.

Even people with a work ethic get disgusted sometimes, sniffing and scratching to eke out a living, especially when they see their hard-earned money being eaten up with taxes and that tax money being squandered.

Does this mean that you are opposed to or in favor of wealth redistribution.

FTR, the middle (consumer/working) class pays all taxes. The wealthy aren't tax payers. They are tax collectors. Anyone who tries to sell the notion that they will "tax the rich" is LYING... and probably knows it.