Obama will be speaking to all the school children of America this week

[patandchickens]

My point is, if they didn't work for it, they didn't earn it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they maybe oughtn't be given some anyhow.

While I agree in principle that it would be better (that is, ideal) NOT to "take" money from the better-off, the sad fact of the matter is that nearly all of us kind of suck at reliably helping our fellow man; certainly we suck at contributing to a central pool that can help people everywhere. (That matters b/c it is a lot easier to get by on help from neighbors if all your neighbors are well off than if you live in a region where poverty and deprivation are widespread and nearly universal).

It would be wonderful if everybody just *spontaneously* contributed reasonably -- with luxury earnings, that is earnings above a basic or maybe lower-middle-class type level being contributed more freely because they are less needed by the person who earned them.

But that is not how people are. It just doesn't work. In particular it seriously does not work on any level larger than, like, within one's church congregation.

I would far rather have the very mild "evil" of Mean Ol Mr Government "forcing" those with more to contribute more of it -- i.e. tax percentages that go up as earnings go up, which we ALREADY HAVE -- than have the very large evil of failing as a country to provide for them as needs it.

You can not just "take extra, slap on another 5% or whatever to "some" cause they have more. <snip>you can not steal "extra" from a millionaire class to "fix" a national problem and think this would ever be legal.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'legal' (not wanting to open big tangential can o worms there), but different tax brackets, with higher-earners paying proportionately (a bit) more taxes, has existed I believe since the inception of income tax, certainly through your entire lifetime and mine.

So it's not like there is no redistribution of wealth going on ALREADY Under Bush too, even The only thing one can reasonably wave one's arms in horror about, with Obama, is that one may disagree with the *degree* or *means* of redistribution he may have in mind. The simple FACT, however, has been part of American government and society for a long time, arguably since the US was founded if you look at how other taxes (non income taxes) work.

You can not rob the rich to give to the poor over what is their reasonable fair amt. to pay.

"Reasonable fair" is what's at issue, though. And different people are going to have different opinions on it.

BTW, as a slight tangent, how come in this thread and others on SS, "government" keeps getting skewed to mean "the federal government only"? State government and county government and local municipal government are governments TOO, and impose taxes and provide benefits and all.


Pat

 

[patandchickens]

How many people make leaching off the goverment a career?

Some. So? There are two DIFFERENT THINGS here. People keep mixing them together but they are DIFFERENT.

One is, should people who are genuinely, honestly, we-all-agree-on-it needy be given help by the government (basic food/water/shelter/heat as needed, basic healthcare, education).

The *other* thing is, how can the system be improved to weed out a higher number of people who are not really that needy or who could perfectly well earn a reasonable living but just *arent*.

I think it is unconscionable to say, let's not have programs to help those in need, just because we are less than 100% efficient in limiting 'em to just those who truly deserve them.

I find it prohibitively hard to envision Jesus, for instance, facing a line of ten starving beggars, about to give them food or wine or a kind word, and then when one of his apostles whispers in his ear "you know, some of them are faking it, although I have no idea which ones" turning away and saying "Oh well then, I wouldn't want to accidentally give something to someone undeserving, so forget about the whole thing."

The thing that should, IMHO, be drawing ire is not the *existance or funding* of welfare/health/etc type programs for the needy -- it's the need for better verification.

(Although frankly there is a large legitimately-gray area out there, and there are some cases where people are never going to all agree on whether they're deserving of aid or not. But since not everyone agrees about anything else in life, it seems, this is no different )

Pat

 

[Big Daddy]

It's because the Federal Government is evil in some peoples eyes. A lot of people think we are all separate independently functioning entities. Of course the Fed subsidizes everything.

Rich people should pay a higher percentage. They make their money off of the lower earning people. They make their money using what is provided by the government known as the commons. The infrastructure that allows them to earn their wealth. They should give more just out of common decency.

I am an atheist but the Bible has a lot of good things in it for people to live their lifes by. I know there is one part in there where Jesus says it would be easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to Heaven. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

[Quail_Antwerp]

Well, since ya'll brought up the Bible, let me add these, and I'll find where the scriptures are for you if you want to look them up, but that will take me a bit because I'm not good at remembering where.

The bible says if a man doesn't work, nor let him eat. (I'm sure this doesn't include those with disabilities or innocent children. Jesus said, "Suffer not the little children."

The Bible also had a "welfare" system. When people of biblical times harvested their fields, they were not to harvest the corners. The corners were left for the poor to collect and feed to their families. If they didn't go and reap the wheat or whatever was planted, then they went hungry. Even the poor had to earn their meals. Read the book of Ruth. Ruth went to the fields and gleaned what the reapers left to feed herself and her mother in law. Still, she worked for it.

BigDaddy, the scripture you are referring to is basically saying no amount of money one man has will gain them entry into heaven. You gain access to heaven by being forgiven, and accepting the gift of Salvation. That's why it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. That's not to say rich won't be awarded heaven, as we don't know the conditions of their heart or whether or not they are forgiven.

 

[patandchickens]

(I'm sure this doesn't include those with disabilities or innocent children. Jesus said, "Suffer not the little children." )

See? That's what we're TALKING about.

Nobody is saying it's a good idea to INTENTIONALLY give handouts to those who don't need them


Pat

 

[reinbeau]

Aly, I can't believe how your tale was lost in this discussion. I'd still love to hear the answer to your question: if money was gone and the only form of 'money' was food, how many of you self-sufficient types would be willing to let the government come in and redistribute your larder? I'm not talking a temporary downturn here, people, I'm talking real strife. Think about it before you tell the government it's ok to dip into a 'rich person's' pocket because somehow they don't deserve all that money. There are people out there who don't think you deserve all that food you've got stockpiled......

Work hard and succeed, and get punished by society for it? Because you 'made your money on the less fortunate'. I am amazed to hear these words spoken so flippantly. I'm afraid this country truly is doomed.

Oh, I can feel all those fingers firing up to tell me that isn't what you said, or that wasn't what you meant, and the argument shading that will result. It is what was said, and it is what you meant - I just don't believe you've actually thought this through to completion.

Disclaimer: No one is to take this personally. You is the generic you in this message.

 

[MorelCabin]

Well, I, for one would be very dismayed if the government came in and took away all my food I had taken the time to have prepped and stored for the winter. I am not in any way sayiong that I wouldn't share it with anyone, because I would, BUT, I don't think it would be fair to be told what I am going to do with it, or have troops come in a redistribute it to others in the community who have never worked for it to begin with.

 

[BeccaOH]

While I agree in principle that it would be better (that is, ideal) NOT to "take" money from the better-off, the sad fact of the matter is that nearly all of us kind of suck at reliably helping our fellow man; certainly we suck at contributing to a central pool that can help people everywhere. (That matters b/c it is a lot easier to get by on help from neighbors if all your neighbors are well off than if you live in a region where poverty and deprivation are widespread and nearly universal).

It would be wonderful if everybody just *spontaneously* contributed reasonably -- with luxury earnings, that is earnings above a basic or maybe lower-middle-class type level being contributed more freely because they are less needed by the person who earned them.

I just had to pop on to say that all the government bureaucracy out there isn't going to change the fact that there will always been rich and always be poor. Government cannot legislate what needs to change in the hearts of people in there attitudes toward their fellowman. If you give government the money to distribute you are just asking to be dominated by those who hold the money and the power to distribute it. I believe that distributing wealth through fair aid is what the church and other charity groups should be doing separate of the state.

It was also mentioned somewhere that our poorest in the USA and many other countries live much better than those in third world countries. Very true. And we see how pumping billions of aid into those countries hasn't changed a thing because their government cannot and will not fairly distribute it. It is better to go there as individual aid workers and teach them farming and textile skills than to have governments throw money at a neverending problem.

Look at early 20th Century history and struggle the Soviet Union, Italy, and others went through to try to level the playing field between the rich and poor. It didn't get better. It only got worse with worse corruption in government.

I love the USA, I love our original Constitution, I pay my taxes willingly, but Uncle Sam need not stick his hand in my food pantry. I'll decide how I want to share it, thank you.

 

[FarmerChick]

Pat said: think it is unconscionable to say, let's not have programs to help those in need, just because we are less than 100% efficient in limiting 'em to just those who truly deserve them.


PAT-- no one has said this ever. There are tons of programs on every level from fed, to state, to county, to churches, to personal level for people helping neighbors.

______________________________________

yes there is a higher tax for more weallthy obviously---KEY BEING---do not feel it is OK to just add--an extra 10%==15% to their tax on top of what is reasonable.....hey they have money---tax them higher and higher and higher and higher.

it is discrimination to "OVER-TAX" anyone based on income.

________________________________________

Quail is right. People suck off the system.
Put more money into stopping fraud and put the money to the people who truly need it.

You have to fix the friggin' problem....the answer is NEVER to find money anywhere you can (like stealing extra taxes from the rich cause they happen to have cash) and keep feeding a monster money pit like welfare and other agencies.



____________________
Big Daddy said: They should give more just out of common decency.


This is a useless statement. Wealthy are already in a higher tax bracket. How much more should they pay "just cause they have money" and to fund the poor and fund this nation. Please....

Common decency has nothing to do with the legal ramifications of taxing income. If rich want to fund charities (like they DO give millions and millions to already!!!!) then fine. THEY should not be raped of their income cause a nation can not fix its problems.

_________________________

BD: I know there is one part in there where Jesus says it would be easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to Heaven. It's pretty basic stuff.

It isn't basic if it is interrpreted wrong at all!
It becomes a basic premise for discrimination. To pretend that it is not OK to be wealthy. And you shamefully use the bible to state that.



Honestly...rich do not deserve to be stripped of their money to help others.

The Constitution never said it would be easy. The Constitution said here are basic rights....now go live your life best you can. The govt. back then did not see to pay for people to live their lives. They are not to give you medical care, paychecks to buy food etc. These amendments came later with all the agencies to help those unfortunate. Temporary help. or long term for disabilities and such.

SO if Social Secuity fails....do we then look at the wealthy's income tax returns and say, oh John made over 1.5 million this year in net. So we MUST now take $250,000 from him and drop it into Social Security because others do not have their monthly checks. The govt. screwed up the Social Security agency, the people are pissed, the govt. can't fund it, now YOU have no monthly check....so idea, Hmm...lets go steal it from the rich.

Please-----

There is no way to constantly rape the rich and expect it to fix a nation.
it will not.

fix the govt. spending.....fix the actual problems that money hemmorgahes thru the system.

 

[me&thegals]

I think it is unconscionable to say, let's not have programs to help those in need, just because we are less than 100% efficient in limiting 'em to just those who truly deserve them.

I find it prohibitively hard to envision Jesus, for instance, facing a line of ten starving beggars, about to give them food or wine or a kind word, and then when one of his apostles whispers in his ear "you know, some of them are faking it, although I have no idea which ones" turning away and saying "Oh well then, I wouldn't want to accidentally give something to someone undeserving, so forget about the whole thing."

Thanks, Pat. I cringe at bringing in the bible, but I know many folks here are religious. As you say, He helped everybody. Many were ungrateful and never even thanked him. I don't think their deservingness had anything to do with it. In fact, their complete lack of deserving was kind of the point, as I understand it.

I'm sure the Old Testament has different ways of addressing it. It was more "eye for an eye" kind of law back then.

In the New Testament, though, I am nearly certain you will not find Jesus looking at someone's intentions before helping them.

Quail--I'm sorry you feel like I disrespect you. I don't. I think this is the first time I've ever even personally addressed you in this forum. I have read about your struggles and sympathized with you. I admire your incredible optimism in the spite of what you and your husband face. I never could have tolerated family living with me as graciously as you did. I was raised by a big-time pull-yourself-up-by-your bootstraps, never whine, never make excuses, work your butt off family. It's the way I live my life. My husband starts work at 5 am every day and sometimes works as late as 10 during harvest. I start my days around 6 and think 7 hours of sleep is a great night. I really get it.

I also believe that I have an incredibly blessed life. I have some level of intelligence (some of you won't agree!), full health and energy, healthy husband and kids, ground that grows great food, a job, health insurance, vehicles that run, a family to support me.

Not everyone has that. Even so, I simply don't believe in refusing to help another one because they don't appear deserving. I also don't believe in ENABLING them and would certainly try to teach them skills so they could help themselves. However, either way, I think people should be helped.

As for this TAKING from the rich and GIVING to the poor, what are you all referring to? As I have mentioned and Pat explained even better, taxes have always taken from those who could afford to pay for public works. We are talking about taxes. The tax code was changed during Bush to favor the wealthy even more. Were you all outraged about taking from the poor (or at least middle class) to fatten up the rich?

Reinbeau--That's a good point. It would get a little more personal if someone came after those peaches it took me so long to can! I guess I would rather be a preventive giver. I have more than I need, and I would rather share it now before it becomes desperate. If you believe in the bible, you trust that when you try to help others you will have enough for yourself, too.

As for our gov't, the stats on the % of GDP that goes toward helping other much poorer nations is, IMO, appalling. We promise and promise and rarely make good. That amount divebombed during the last administration while the rich in America thrived even more. I'm so glad some of them (Buffet and Gates, for example) take up the slack in a big way. They are my heroes. I don't despise wealthy folks. Just those who live WAY, WAY more extravagantly than most people could even imagine and don't share any.

As for not helping out the impoverished, I promise you that will come back to bite us. What do you think happens to gov't relations when people with TVs all over the planet see how we live and how little we help? And if you think it is ALL about hard work, try considering the governments some people live under, their climates, their flooding/droughts, the wars in their countries and neighboring countries, their environmental devastation, and consider how well you would do there if time and chance had you being born there.