I spend considerable hours every month serving food at a local shelter. I do this because I agree that the other man is my brother, and because I believe Christ when He said that what we do for the least of His children, we do for Him.
But I do it. I don’t go wake up my next-door neighbor and demand that he come down and serve food with me.
See the difference?
Your intentions as regards the needy are noble and correct. Your method is Robin Hood’s.
I really shouldn’t be amazed and disgusted, as this vile stuff is vomited forth all the time by just about everyone, it seems, in real life. Still gets to me, though. Still amazes me that people who were merely lucky think they’re superior, and that said superiority confers the right to feel they owe nothing to the society that made their success possible.
No, it’s not Robin Hood, any more than your assistance at the shelter is a sign of communist leanings on your part.
Truly stupid. Amazingly stupid.
In what way was I “merely lucky?”
I will only speak for myself, and say that I don’t consider myself twice as good as my cousin the machinist because I make at least twice as much as he does. Apparently, by your posts, you would and do, since apparently to you the value of a person is the value of his renumeration, and since, according to your ideology, far as I can tell, taking money from you to pay for his son’s public education, for vaccinations to keep that boy from coming down with polio or measles, for public transport to take him to and from school, for subsidized housing for my cousin, for all of these things, is playing Robin Hood. This despite the fact that the education will repay itself to society, the vaccinations will keep the public health from being jeopardized, the public transport serves the purpose of getting him to the education that will repay itself to society, and the housing is no more subsidized than that of my suburban homestead, financed in large part by a mortgage interest deduction that your side of the fence has no problem with. But then that goes to morally superior hard-working people, right?
No one said you said you were merely lucky. It is a fact that you were lucky. Because people just as smart, determined and hardworking as you are not successfull and that is just luck.
You never said you were selfish either, but that is self-evident in your words.
I enjoy public broadcasting as one of the few outlets of left leaning news coverage. I watched Sesame Street as a kid, and my daughter watched it as a child. Yet I support this move to remove public funding.
I would ask how many of those on the left who are in a lather over this would feel the same way if the news coverage on NPR radio and on PBS leaned to the right. There is no logical reason why it couldn’t. I am uncomfortable with the government being involved in any way in bringing us the news. PBS is not a necessary social service, it is an outlet for entertainment and information.
It used to be that there were only four places you could go for this information, and thus PBS made sense. Now there are 500 choices that cover the entire spectrum of news information. PBS can and will survive when it is detached from the public teat. I can’t find a reason why taxpayer money is needed to support anyone’s entertainment preference. If their news coverage was full or right wing talking heads and pro-government coverage I would certainly object. I can’t fault the other side for their objections.
So how about it, would supporters of NPR and PBS feel the same if the news on NPR had a slant that didn’t conform to their political leanings?
Why don’t you ask Jesus this, Liberal?
I don’t understand why a self-described Christian like yourself (or Bricker, for that matter) would even ask this question, honestly. I’d love it if you could help me see why you aren’t contradicting your spiritual priniciples.
Our country is not a Christian nation, true. But the credo “Help those who are less unfortunate” is a universal “do-gooder” one. There is an ulterior motive behind it. If we don’t help those who are poor, then the poor will hurt us. They will murder us and our children for our shoes. They will give us the wrong change at the grocery store because they didn’t receive proper nutrition as a child. They will vote for crooks and liars out of desperation and gullibility. They will ring up billions of dollars as indigents at hospitals.
Joe Schmoe may not succeed at his endeavors because of laziness. Or perhaps he’s a failure because he’s not bright or he suffers from delibitating disease. Maybe he’s burdened by elderly parents, a spouse who’s mentally ill, and children who are evil. Maybe he is a victim of crime (think of all the people who became poor due to that Enron thing).
Even if half of poor people were poor strictly because of lazy, that would still leave the other half scrambling around in undeserved circumstances. Maybe the rest of us, the fortunate ones, should turn a blind eye and forget them. But then we can’t relent about crime, incompetent employees, dirty streets, or horrible schools.
I can readily admit that I am where I am today (which isn’t all that lofty a position, but I am blessed) because of hard work and a healthy dose of luck. Sometimes I think the luck outweighs the hard work. My religious mother would call “luck” the grace of God; I’m not so sure. To deprive people of help is to give oneself more credit that he’s generally due. A humble person doesn’t blame the poor for their poverty. Nor does he tell them to “buck it up”, all on their own.
To the OP, I say cutbacks to CPB sucks donkey balls. And people who aren’t bemoaning the decision suck donkey balls too.
Please point out the post in which I said that the value of a person is the value of his renumeration. In fact, I direct you to these words of mine:
Please find the post in which I expressed support for the mortgage interest deduction.
What do think “playing Robin Hood” means?
Robin Hood undoubtedly could list similar benefits for his actions; the money he took from wealthy travellers through Sherwood Forest was undoubtedly given to worthy causes with benefits similar to what you list above.
Llet me also note a change in the thrust of your argument: you are now offering the justification that expenditures will ultimately innure to the benefit of society, and are thus a good investment.
As it happens, I agree with this calculus.
What I don’t agree with is the notion that we “owe” society in some nebulous, inchoate fashion. We may choose to pay for public vaccinations, not because we owe society, but because we regard the cost of vaccinations a reasonable price to pay for public health. We may choose to pay for public education, because we regard that expenditure as more likely to produce more wealth-generating individuals down the line… not because we “owe” anyone an education.
Imagine there was and had never been a PBS. What argument would you put forth for its creation and how would you justify spending tax dollars for a television/radio programming?
I may contribute myself if there was less classical music and more Car Talk.
So far off, its not even wrong. We educate in order to create better citizens. Better informed, so that they might make better decisions.
And I wouldn’t make those Puerta reservations just yet. According to recent news, there is considerable grumbling in the lower orders, the peasants are gathering outside of Castle Fronkensteen…torches, scythes, laptops…
Serfs up!
Sorry. I don’t buy this. You and I are using “luck” in very different ways, I think.
Is it “bad luck” when you suffer a severe financial setback? Maybe so. But when you live prudently, you are in much better shape to recover from that sort of bad luck. If you focus mypoicially on an incident of “bad luck,” you may conclude that there was nothing to be done - that this event was simply going to be crippling.
I look around and I see people living paycheck to paycheck… and I’m not talking about minimum wage people. I’m talking about people making $80K; households making $110K… and they are strapped. Why? Because they have to have two new cars, and a wide-screen TV, and a vacation in St. Thomas every year. Then “bad luck” strikes - a job is lost, a medical emergency hits. And the house of cards comes tumbling down.
And there you are, gazing dully at the results and mumbling “Oh, it’s just bad luck - if it happened to you, you’d be in the same boat!”
NO! It wasn’t luck. Who told them they had to have two new cars? I drive a nine-year-old car. Who told them they had to have a plasma TV? I have an ordinary, regular, non-HDTV, television. Why? Because I know that disaster can strike at any time. I know that if the forcast calls for wind, there could be a hurricane coming anyway. So I save. I invest. I don’t live beyond my means. I live UNDER my means. Because I have been hit with disaster before, and I’m sure I will again.
But these assholes that frolic merrily about, running up to the absolute limit on their credit cards having fun - fun I would LOVE to have - get hit by a disaster and they have no safety net. They sink.
And then you want me to bail them out. Because I have money.
Yeah, I have money. Because I didn’t do all the stuff they did!!
You’re just not very bright. You’re probably dumber than dirt, in fact. It’s selfish for me to object to saving people from disasters that their own choices exacerbated?
Bull.
And who are these people just as smart, determined, and hardworking as I that are still having serious trouble? Find one for me. Seriously. Point one out.I bet that you’ll find a LACK of determination in their past, a willingnes to squander opportunity instead of take it. Show me I am wrong.
I have several reasons for being upset:
I can tune into NPR or PBS without worrying about whether the views on the show are the opinions of some corporate entity. That’s why I’m upset that we’re heading towards the extinction of publically-funded media, while private corporations are getting more gluttonous.
I think people confuse “high brow” with “liberal”. They have an hour-long program here on the local public radio station devoted to the arts. Do you think most Rush Limbaugh listeners appreciate a show like this? No (I actually find it boring myself). There’s that show hosted by Ed Gordon (who replaced Tavis Smiley) which caters to an African American audience. The show is actually balanced as far as liberal-conservative prospectives go (don’t believe me, just tune in for five minutes), but because it’s a show targeting blacks, it’s seen as liberal.
During “All Things Considered”, they air brief smidges of commentary from writers, journalists, professors, teachers, and other professionals. Some of these vignettes expose liberal thinking, but others are just plain silly. In the same way that Andy Roony is silly. Other professionals may get the humor, but outsiders may think it’s all just pretentious claptrap. I admit to feeling like this occassionally. Once, I was driving an undergraduate assistant to a field site (and as the driver, I took the privilege of tuning the radio to NPR), and he remarked that NPR (or rather, “All Things Considered”) is “corny”. Yes, it is corny. Is that a sin?
If there is a bias to NPR or PBS, people need to correct it. Not pull back from it. It’s kind of like saying, “The Turnpike has too many potholes. I think we should reduce funding for it”. How does reducing funding change the problem?
Hello Bricker,
How’s this for bad luck. My mom went to college and became a nurse. She then met my father, put him through school, and together they had eight children in ten years (at his insistence). She, of course, quit her job to stay home, while my father started a very successful business. After twenty of marriage, he left her for his secretary two months after my oldest brother was killed by a drunk driver.
He had false books, and everybody knew it, but he wasn’t caught. He paid less than $200.00 dollars a month in child support for the remaining seven children (all under 19). He took everything. Cash, pensions, and cars, as they were all in his name. Mom got the house.
Shall we blame my mother for her bad fortune? Luck? Nope. Sometimes bad shit happens, and it’s just beyond the facilities of people like you to understand. I’m sure somewhere in your mind this is indeed mom’s fault. But don’t you worry your pretty little head, your tax dollars never paid a dime for her.
Is it the government’s job to provide a balance to the established media? That thought scares me a little. Do you really trust the government more than you trust corporations? I think they BOTH have their own agendas at heart…your well-being not one of them.
So, why would you oppose elected representatives if they increase taxes, pass Big Brother laws, spend on public broadcasting etc.? In theory, all of us have given consent to the elected representatives.
I guess my question is how do you distinguish libertarian positions on political issues with the core non-coercion libertarian philosophy?
Of course you don’t. That’s how you rationalize being selfish. It helps to have a big ego. To know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are so superior to circumstances that you would have pulled yourself up by you boot-straps.
What the fuck all does this have to do with using your tax dollars to fund PBS? What kind of long and twisty road have you set yourself on now in order to defend acting selfish? This piece of legislature is shit no matter how much gravy you want to pour on it.
Yeah, that’s one long, twisty bitter road. There are assholes in the world who don’t know how to manage money, so fuck funding good public TV! It’s my money! MINE MINE MINE!!!
Ah, to be so superior. So smug. It kinda pricks when you flaws are pointed out to you doesn’t it?
So you do believe being poor is some sort of moral failing. I know plenty of hard working, decent and smart individuals who are poor. If you only know lazy and stupid poor people, perhaps you should start hanging out with a better class of people.
You have a point, but it has not yet come to pass. As far as I know, the government has tried to exert little control over NPR and PBS beyond the appointment of ombudsmen to watch over the programming. It’s not a governmental propaganda agency yet and hopefully never will be.
To answer your question more directly: the way the system works currently, yes I do think that it is the governments job to provide a balance to the established media if only because the current crop is desperately out of whack.
Excuse me, but the subjunctive mood is not appropriate here. I did pull myself up. I was poor as a child. My family was poor. My father came here from El Salvador with nothing, nothing to his name. I started out with nothing in the way of wealth.
Whatever success I have now grew from how I was anble to respond to that set of circumstances.
You advanced the proposition that I had a duty to pay for PBS. I “owed” it to society. These discussions explore that assertion.
I grant that the issue of assholes with poor money management skills is not directly relevant to the issue of funding public TV. Again, however, the assertion that someone with money in his pocket has a debt to someone without money in his pocket was advanced as support for funding public TV. From that assertion, this discussion becomes relevant.
But since you are evidently uninterested in pursuing this line of argument - and I cannot blame you for that - let us return to the basic question: what is the value in funding public TV. Why should I want my tax dollars funding programming that I regard as leaning politically away from the correct course? Why would I want to fund it with public dollars even if it were leaning correctly? Why should the public fund such an endeavor at all?
You want to convince me to spend my money - so convince me.
I’ve been poor myself, and through no fault of my own. Why would I blame your mother for something she had no control over?
But when I was poor, I never reached into someone else’s pocket and demanded they pay me. Doesn’t sound like your mother is doing that either.
I object to people reaching into my pocket and tellng me that I have a debt to pay someone else.