Bread and Circuses

[crazychicknlady]

I was listening to Dave Ramsey earlier. He had foks calling in to say who they voted for and why. I am saddened by the number of people ready to live off of money stolen from other people. Why is it so common for people who make less, to think those who make more are unworthy of holding on to the wealth they have earned?

Comments

[catnip13.livejournal.com]

M posted a bit in his blog a few weeks ago, something about freeloaders and society's cracks, and I was really to busy to get into it with him.

I, personally, don't mind paying a little bit more in taxes so that someone who is trying to support a family on less than what we have can pay less. It seems fair to me. I think it is fair that I pay more taxes than a single mom trying to raise two kids on a minimum wage job.

I'm also more concerned about the social conservatives' attacks on reproductive, religious, and sexual freedoms than I am about tax policy. There are liberal policies I disagree with too, but all in all, those are the issues that concern me the most.

I understand the Libertarian ideal that, freed from oppresive taxes, people will take care of each other when Bad Stuff happens, but I'm too much of a pessimist to believe it.

Really bad things can happen to really good, decent, hardworking people, and I believe that it is the fair and decent thing to make sure that we take care of each other when that happens.

You've known (I think) for years that I'm a liberal. There are a lot of issues that I agree with you guys on (gun laws don't stop gun violence, parents should be free to choose how to educate their kids), and I respect that you disagree with me on issues. I hope I didn't just tick you off, and that we can still be friends, even if we disagree.

[crazychicknlady.livejournal.com]

Really bad things can happen to really good, decent, hardworking people, and I believe that it is the fair and decent thing to make sure that we take care of each other when that happens.

I agree. And I think the key to what you said is "we take care of each other". Cut out the middle man. Even if we drop the argument about the ethics of redistribution of wealth, I am passionately convinced that the government does such a poor job with the money it steals, that more people would get the help they need if the government got out of the picture.

Now, some people might not get as much help as they think they need, but some people are just milking the system. I talked with one at a Con once, he was very happy to not work at all by exploiting the system to live on other peoples' money.

The main sense I got from the Obama supporters who called Dave Ramsey's show, was a sense of entitlement. They felt they deserved more money just because they made less than those "rotten" rich people who weren't paying their "fair share". You may see it as fair to pay more, but I don't think anyone has the right to anyone else's hard work, time, life.

PS. If you can handle Anarchist Objectivist Atheists, who am I to quibble.

Bigger Cracks

[rocketsong.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

My main point in my post on societies cracks

http://rocketsong.blogspot.com/2008/09/free-riders-and-societies-cracks.html

is that Liberals and Conservatives really, really, DO NOT understand the way the other thinks. This is why when a conservative and a liberal argue it is like talking to a brick wall, their underling assumptions mean that they can't even agree upon what they are arguing about.

Government programs that are designed to help people ALWAYS, every time, no exception, make things worse. Yes they may help some people along the way, but the number one function of any bureaucratic organization is to perpetuate the organization.

Liberals need to accept the fact that they can't save/help everyone. Conservatives need to accept the fact that someone will always get a free ride. Only then can you truly start working towards solutions.

The government taxing you more in order to "spread the wealth" does actual, real, harm. It means that you have less money to spend at local businesses (which means fewer jobs), it means that you have less money for your retirement (which means fewer jobs down the road) ect.

If you want to help that single mother, help her. Bring her a lasagna to help her feed her family. Teach her a marketable skill so she can earn more money. Run a clothing drive so that she has an interview suit. Buy her a firearm (and a training class) so she can defend herself against her abusive ex-husband (not valid in California, Illinois, and New York).

But don't ever think that higher taxes are going to help her. Higher taxes just destroy jobs and rob folks of opportunity. You want to help people then actually HELP them.

The Red Cross, Salvation Army, and many other similar charitable organizations manage to take over 90% of their donations and get them to people in need. I can assure you that government programs are nowhere near as efficient. They are mostly efficient at employing government employees.

So that's the conundrum. How do you help those people who really could use a "hand up and not a hand-out"? Now, how do you do that without making things worse for everyone in line behind them?

I maintain that the way you help the most people is twofold.

First you accept the fact that "a rising tide lifts all boats". A tax structure that encourages large businesses to take their business out of the country, and penalizes small businesses for growing over 50 people, must as a point of fact increase unemployment and decrease opportunity.

Lowering the unemployment rate by a full percentage point clearly helps a lot more people out than any program (private or governmental) ever could.

Second you recognize that helping folks directly in your community, either through individual effort, or some group (religious or secular), is THE most effective way of helping folks to realize the potential and opportunity.

Third, you accept that there are just some folks who simply can't be helped, and there always will be.