Congratulations, you sound very pleased with yourself.
Did you ever stop to think that being forced to give to “charity” makes people feel less charitable? Given how much the government is taking from me, I certainly don’t feel like a bad person for not donating more on top of that. But you seem to think it’s OK on one hand to forcibly take my money and give it to the poor, and on the other hand, deride me for “doing nothing” for charities because I haven’t given even more. You’ve at least grasped the concept that forced charity isn’t really charity, but you’ve carried it to the point where you refused to even acknowledge the contribution.
By my calculations, I give a little over 7% of my annual income to social programs. That’s enough paid per year to cover all of my college expenses for a year, food and rent included. So I’m giving enough to put a whole other person through college (note: in 1990 dollars; adjust accordingly). Hell, if all they wanted to do was sit on their ass all year and not go to college, they’ll even have some extra money left over! Does this make you “very, very sad” because I haven’t given more than is required of me? Can you lay it out for us Evil Bastards: if providing enough money to completely support one other person isn’t enough, how many people do I have to support in order to be deemed “compassionate”? The fact is, if I made enough money that my taxes could support ten deadbeats doing nothing but watching TV all day, you’d still consider me “very very sad” if I thought it excessive.
Hmm… yes. I read over your posts again, and it seems that my ire should not have been directed at you. For some reason your name became attached to other positions on my mind. I apologise for that. I withdraw every comment directed at you in the above post. And then I’ll go cut myself a big slice of gourmet humble pie.
Now, on to the pit stuff.
That’s a right pretty speech there, but it is silly to expect the government to adhere to the same rules as individuals. The government is not an individual, it is a representative of a somewhat similarly-minded group of people (a society) and as such, it has different rights and responsibilities. For instance, a private citizen cannot cause the death of another person. The government can. Would you like to do away with the death penalty?
I sure would, but let’s look at something else the government can do that you or I can’t. The government can imprison someone without their consent, but a private citizen cannot. Since you seem to be so insistent on the abolition of taxes, I assume that you are equally insistent on the abolition of imprisonment. Or should I be able to lock you up without your permission? It’s alright, I’ll get 12 of my mates to find you guilty of a crime, so you’ll get a trial and everything.
I’ll stop “stealing” from you as soon as I can start trying and imprisoning you.
This line is boring when Charlton Heston pulls it out. You, possessing neither his acting background or his charisma make it positively trite.
My husband was in charge of the annual charity drive at his workplace. (By the way, none of the employees of this organization earns less than $30,000 per year, with full benefits. Most earn more.)
Historically, the drive had had little success, and my husband theorized that it was because the people in charge asked for too large of a donation. His idea was to have each employee agree to have one dollar taken automatically from their paychecks and donated to the charity of their choice. (IIRC, there were at least 100 charities they could chose from.) Considering the amount of employees, it would have made the drive an incredible success.
He was dismayed by what happened. Only a very few employees agreed to sign up. Most flatly refused. A few said that they gave elsewhere. (However, none mentioned welfare programs as the reason for their refusal.) My husband was appalled. It was just a dollar! One measly dollar!
So, no, I don’t really buy that the more money people have in their pockets, the more charitable they will feel. Charity depends on the individual. A person who never gives to charity will not change that outlook if, say, their taxes are a couple of thousand less per year. They’ll just find other uses for the money.
Generosity depends solely on the person’s outlook. Many people who give to charity do so regardless of their financial situation. I have seen people who could barely afford to keep their electricty on give to those less fortunate. My husband and I are not wealthy, but we donate regularly. I have also known millionaires who wouldn’t give a penny if it would keep someone from starving to death.
yosemitebabe, you mention a lot of unknowns in your post. No, I don’t know that humanity will NOT do the right thing. However, policy shouldn’t rest on assuming the best in people.
I haven’t offered any proof that without taxation poverty will skyrocket. But I do know that poverty was much worse than it was prior to Johnson’s administration. Where were the charities then? Where was the good will of all those God-fearin’ Murikuns.
Um…how do you know what I don’t know? Again, you’re resting your argument on assumptions based on your own perceptions of the world. Your perceptions obviously differ from mine. Doesn’t make them right or wrong, but you’re not persuading me any.
I “get off” because I read and follow the news. Do you know how sick it made me to hear about people actually complaining that they deserved more than their donated allotment? Yes, it happened.
But you didn’t answer my question. If 9/11 happened all the time, do you think 70% of Americans would continually donate? Or do you think about half of those Americans would wonder why in the hell those 9/11 people can’t get their acts together and stop whining about money?
Unfortunately, very few 9/11 victims survived. People donated money so that families that needed the money would get it. I know I didn’t donate so that some rich housewife and her kids could continue living in their McMansion. Like most people, I probably donated for the wrong reasons: to assuage my guilt and to feel like I was doing something. But that’s neither here nor there: my point is that few people will donate for the poor like they did for 9/11. It’s not glamorous enough. The victims aren’t as “tragic”.
Yes, who knows! Not you and not me! We’re both equally ignorant about the “what ifs”, yosemitebabe. At present, the government provides some means so that we don’t have to go there with the freakin “what ifs”.
People didn’t want to go there with the “what ifs” for this war and that’s why we’re over there in Iraq. Well, I don’t want to go there with the “what ifs” for the war on poverty. Why is that so hard to understand?
yosemitebabe, you’re a Christian. Do you really think Jesus would hate living in a society that takes care of its citizens?
Heh, well it seems you’re going to get your wish. These programs WILL be cut. If not now, some day. Happy now?
There are two kinds of people in our society. Those who produce more for the gross national product and pay more in taxes than they take in benefits from the government and those who are in the negative on those equations. Those who are getting more in benefits than they produce are getting those benefits at the pleasure of those who produce them. If the producers chose en masse to engage in a tax revolt, the IRS and the justice system would be overwhelmed and the political upheaval would result in substantial change. The question, therefore, among the producers is “how much is too much”? As the population ages and the strain on Medicare and Social Security grows, that question will become more politically relevant. Republicans get much of thier power base from the producers. Democrats get thiers from the takers. And how you feel about the situation is based on the choices you made when you were young and how much money is either going into or coming out of your pocket courtesy of your Federal Government.
I’m going over to Pius’s house to steal all his possessions with my bare hands. This is not meant to be violent or physically threatening as that sort of thing is not permitted here. But hopefully by depriving him of his computer this will put an end to his sanctimonious bullshit. I’m kind of surprised his mother continued to feed him as a child given the fact that it would mean one less morsel she could consume herself.
monstro, I take it from this quote that you think the government’s imperative should be based on a Judeo Christian ethic?
More seriously, I just can’t see someone exhorting a fellow Christian on this issue by saying that Jesus would “hate living in a society” where the government provides a nice big welfare program. Because that is what you’re saying, isn’t it? Christ’s directives were to the individual, and I think it’s a bit disingenous to imply that a true Christian would or should support government welfare. There are lots of ways for a society to take care of its citizens, dear, and state sponsored programs are just one.
I also couldn’t let this comment go by:
No, it’s not. Our economy has expanded by orders of magnitude since its inception. But that’s a subject for another thread.
Your arguement seems to boil down to: some people have it bad, therefore the rest of us should be extorted via inefficient government programs to throw money at the problem. And anyone who disagrees with this premise is an evil, heartless person.
Lissa, I see your outrage at the level of giving in your husband’s company as part of this misguided attitude: who are you to determine what you think everyone should be donating, and have the temerity to be appalled when they don’t? You even said that you knew millionaires who wouldn’t donate a penny, and implied [even if it were true, which I would argue you have no way of knowing] that somehow this is symptomatic of the individual’s failing and must be remedied.
Newsflash: This is not evidence of a basic lack of decency of the American giving public… not even close. (I won’t go into why, because the myriad of reasons should be obvious at a moment’s thought). Further, your being appalled is also not justification for extorting people out of their money via governmental channels simply because someone thinks they should be forced to donate at a certain, arbitrary level. This attitude is so ludicrously, dare I say it, fascist, I can hardly keep my eyes from rolling back into my head long enough to type.
I will agree that there are serious poverty problems in this country that I would like to see solved. I will not agree that a bloated welfare system is the best way to do it.
Yosemitebabe, one only need read this (and other similar) thread(s) to believe that without the government interceding to care for some of its citizens, many, many people in this country would starve and die. The abject hatred for the poor I see here absolutely sickens me.
And given all the publicity over the years of the money skimming and gargantuan salaries of some of the top people in private charitable organizations, I don’t trust the private sector to do any better job than the U.S. Government. Obviously some of them do, or I wouldn’t support them (duh). But do I trust that they all will, if left to do it all on their own? Sadly, no.
At least with the government in control, we, as tax-paying citizens, have the right to lobby our representatives and effect changes in the system to (hopefully) improve it. There have been many such efforts over the years, and many changes as a result. We could stand to do much better, sure. But at least we have a voice! And some control. If we had to rely solely on the private sector, who would set limits on allowable benefits? Who would set work requirements (and be able to enforce them!) for benefit recipients? Under the 1996 welfare law, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients have a five-year lifetime limit of eligibility for federally funded cash assistance and **they must work at least a designated number of hours per week. ** Given that single mothers comprise 90 percent of welfare parents receiving federal cash assistance, I’m not entirely convinced it’s the best solution, but at least it’s something.
You not only have the cold heart of a stone, but you have the reading comprehension skills of plankton.
My reply was not directed to you. Therefore, I did not “deride you for doing nothing”. I derided the misanthrope who said, “Would you pay them if the government didn’t threaten you with imprisonment or other physical nastiness? I wouldn’t.” If you would, then good for you – you should. Based on the below quoted section, however, I’m afraid I don’t believe for a moment that you would.
Yes, it makes me very sad, indeed. Your whole attitude is filled with hate and disgust and little desire to actually learn something about the less-fortunate of our society, let alone give a shit about them and what brought them to their circumstances. Your obvious resentment stems from the erroneous idea that all recipients of benefits are lazy assholes who’d rather watch TV than create a better life for themselves and their children. I’m pretty sure Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee would beg to differ, given that both of these now successful women have been the recipients of welfare benefits. But then, what do I know? Perhaps they’re lazyass television-watchers and they’re just putting on a good show.
It also presumes that none of those people receiving assistance ever paid into the system, themselves, and are really only taking back out what they put in. As tax-paying citizens themselves, they have as much right to collect benefits they’ve paid for as you would, should heaven forbid you ever need to. You’d best pray (and pray really, really hard) that you’re never laid off in an economy like this one! But you’re young – give it time. It’ll happen. And then what will you do? I shudder to think.
I’m appalled that I have to share the planet with hateful pricks like you. Yes, you do, in fact, make me very, very sad.
May I make a statement here and find out what the people who oppose the free lunch and/or breakfast programs really think? I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth’s, but I am going to make a blanket statement of what I got out of your combined arguements. Just tell me where your philosophy differs…
As for my opinion… I would much rather feed a hungry child in the United States than to feed a hungry child at gunpoint in Iraq. Freedom and opportunity is a wonderful goal for the whole world. I feel we need to take care of the poor in this country, especially the children. I think that if the government wants to give big business a tax break, go ahead, on the stipulation that they create training programs for the unskilled and underemployed. These can be on-the-job training programs that will not pay much before the training is complete. This way, the poor, some of which would love to find a better job, will be able to and to remove themselves and family from the rolls of the poor.
I’m not trying to be snippy, but did you even know what that meant? Have you studied economics in depth? Just asking . . .
Call me a Commie, call me a facist, call me Satan’s sister if you wish, but anyone who can’t give a goddam dollar when they’re making as much as the employees of this particular place are is a heartless, selfish jerk.
I did not say my two examples are evidence of a basic lack of decency. If I wished, I could find myriad examples to prove that point elsewhere.
Let’s take a look back into history, shall we? Before there was a state welfare system * people starved to death .* Charity existed, didn’t it? The Catholic Church ran poor homes and their parishoners donated food and money. Protestane denominations had women delivering food baskets to poor homes. Private individuals who felt the urge helped as well. What was the result? * People starved and froze to death. *
Do you really want to go back to that? The results of a lack of a social welfare system are crystal clear if you care to read any history book. The fact is the wealthier part of our population WILL NOT pick up the burden if the state decided to drop social welfare. They didn’t in the past, when our society was more religious and less selfish, so what was the sweeping societal changes in this generation which will save the poor? You’d be stepping over corpses in the street.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I shudder to think what would happen if your advice was followed. Crime would skyrocket. Firstly, because no parent wants to see their child strarve, and secondly, because we’re better armed than our ancestors were. There would be epidemics of disease, because, remember, you just got rid of free medical care, and that means no vaccinations. We’ll have to close public schools because starving children will practically kill wealthier children just to get at the contents of their paper bag lunch. They’ll strip more well-off kids naked and sell their clothes as they did to children who wandered into the poor neighborhoods in Victorian London.
If you’ll notice, each site was for a different year. The first was from a study done by the * Boston Globe * in 1996. The Nader testimony was given in 1999. The third cited 1994 figures. The Cato Institute’s paper was from 1997. Different figures, different years.
Nevertheless, I feel safe in saying corporate welfare far exceeds the welfare doled out to the poor. The poor are just the boogeymen who get blamed for all of the budget woes.
The point of that exchange is missed by most people who see Fidler On The Roof because they don’t understand the culture from which it comes. They think Nahum has a lot of chutspeh to berate Lazar Wolf for shorting his usual donation. That’s because they don’t realize that the beggar’s position in society is as important as the butcher’s. It’s a mitzva (duty, even command) to give alms to the poor. If there were no beggars, the rest of the community would have no one to whom to give. Nahum doubtless came from a father who was a beggar, and a grandfather… and his children will be beggars also. It’s his job. In shtetl society, the beggar was not looked down on. He was a full member of the community. So the line isn’t really funny. It’s just revelatory of the structure of the shtetl community.
In American society the beggar by and large is looked down on. Conservatives have forgotten that it’s a mitzva (read cultural imperative) to support those among us who can’t support themselves. They are entitled because they are part of us.
To answer the OP: All governments are evil…but necessary. Depending on where you come from you may agree that the US government is maybe a little less evil than most. A little less.
Um, I’m one of those who would have a problem with my workplace taking some of my pay and donating it to charity.
If only, because a lot of times, the company may sponsor an organization which I do not agree with. Or someone else might not. (For example, when I was at Kmart, and we were doing this March of Dimes thing, one woman was offended-a customer-because she said that MOD supports abortion or something like that). They may, oh, give to United Way, which I have a problem with. Or something.
Oh christ. No, as a matter of fact I don’t assume all welfare recipients are lazy – you fabricated that based on the fact that I said my contributions are enough to support someone who doesn’t work at all (which is quite different from me claiming that they do support someone who doesn’t work at all). All I’m doing is visualizing the size of my contribution in terms of “how many people would this support”. In reality, it gets split up and helps many people each in a smaller way, but it really strikes me as odd that I’m effectively adopting a whole person, and yet I’m still viewed as not doing enough. This implies that if we tried to match up contributors and recipients 1-to-1, we’d have more recipients than contributors. Does that seem right to you?
Yeah, no shit, sherlock. Your reply obviously wasn’t directed at me, because I hadn’t even participated in the thread yet. When I say you advocate taking my money, I mean “me, a taxpayer,” not “me, ntucker.” Don’t insult my reading comprehension just because thinking in abstract terms is difficult for you.
And feel free to reread my post and ask yourself if I really included anything that warranted you calling me a hateful prick and a liar. I think you’ll find that the sentiments you were so quick to infer aren’t actually there.
So… able bodied, multi-generational beggars were the norm for shtetl society and were not looked down upon even if able to work? Begging as a necessary means of support for the disabled I can understand, but I have to say I find it very difficult to believe that this attitude would extend to healthy, able bodied individuals begging for living regardless of the need to do a mitzvah. Do you have any kind of cite to buttress this assertion?
ntucker, you are either willfully ignorant or dumber than a bag of rocks. I will criticize your reading comprehension skills when it’s clear that you still have no idea what the bloody fuck you’ve read!
I Did NOT Ever SAY or IMPLY that you OR ANYONE LIKE YOU was “not doing enough” by simply paying taxes and nothing more. NEVER.
I will try to put this in simple language so you get it this time.
I was asked, directly, whether I would pay taxes if I weren’t forced to by the government. The questioner, exhibiting a distinctly misanthropic viewpoint, said that THEY would NOT.
I replied that not only do I gladly pay my taxes so that I may enjoy the services they provide, but I ALSO do A, B, C, D & E. I further inferred that, based on what THAT POSTER had to say, that HE (HE, get it, HE) would do NOTHING if he weren’t forced to.
He wouldn’t pay taxes and he wouldn’t voluntarily contribute to the needy.
HIM.
Is that simple enough for you yet?
So again, to take what you said to me in your first post here…
I will again reiterate that I SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT.
I didn’t even say it to Pius!
Sadly, I note how you failed to even address a single factual statement I made – you only seem to be concerned with how you’re personally portrayed/viewed. A wee bit self-centered there, are we? Yep. That’s why I don’t trust that you would do anything – anything at all – if it weren’t “forcibly” taken from you (or however you choose to view your societal obligation).
And for the record, if you reply to me again and continue to misstate what I said, I will not be bothering to respond. I think I’ve been more than clear. If you still don’t get it, I’ve no intention of wasting any more of my valuable time on you.