I thought I had answer those questions.  If I didn't here are your questions with my answer underneath.

One more time, though, gammaknight: is it the cost to you of other people abusing the system that really bothers you, or is it more just the idea of them getting an easier break than they deserve? 

I was going to say the first, but then thought hard about your question and have to go with the second.  No one should have an easier time because they are in some "group", but all should be able to climb with the God given talents and abilities they have.

Is it the actual cost that gets to you, or is it seeing people get more than than they should?

Its not the cost, though high, and its not seeing people getting more than they should.  Its getting what they didn't work for that bothers me the most.

The solution to all these is government shouldn't be in the business of morality or charity, but should only be concern with removing as many hurdles from the people's way.  Not by giving them hand outs, but removing punishments and injustices.

Okay, that's what I was looking for.  This is a natural human tendency, to get angry when others get something they didn't work as hard for as you would/do/have to/whatever.  At it's root, it's a jealously thing:  "I did it the hard way, why should they get it without the hard work?!"  We tend to feel that way, even when it has no direct impact on us.

Have a look at Mathew 20:1-16.  This is quite possibly my favorite of Jesus' parables, and I think it's very apt here.  We have a natural tendency to get angry when things aren't fair, even when the unfairness doesn't harm us, but only benefits someone else.  It's part of our nature, but it's not necessarily a good part of our nature.  We shouldn't get angry at people getting an easy ride.  We shouldn't begrudge others their good luck.  We shouldn't be angry when someone is generous to someone who doesn't deserve it.

This is why I brought up the question first.  I wanted you to really think about what it was that was bothering you.  We tend to talk about it in terms of the cost of wellfare, but really, its usually actually seeing people get something without working for it that bothers us.  It doesn't actually cost us much at all, and if we dropped wellfare, it wouldn't change our taxes all that much.  What bugs us is seeing people get something without working for it.  They show up "at the eleventh hour" and still get as much as us suckers who worked all day.  But that's not the way we should be thinking about it.  We shouldn't be so concerned about people getting more than they've worked for.  That's really not that big of a problem.  It seems unfair to us, but why do we get so upset about it?  If we truly are caring people, who honestly value the wellbeing of others (even those who don't deserve it), we should be happy to see that they're getting more than they deserve.  We should be glad for their good fortune, and glad that they're not starving instead.  It's not easy.  It's not human nature to be happy for people who don't pull their own weight.  But we should aim for it.  We should strive to do better than just human nature.

but all should be able to climb with the God given talents and abilities they have.

But that's where capitalism breaks down, because they can't. If you work hard, all your life, devote every joule of energy you have to bettering yourself, you are very likely to die in the some economic class you were born in. Luck and opportunity are far more beneficial to improving your lot in life than hard work.

Mr Tycho, there is a flaw in your understanding of the parable.  The land owner is not the government.  If a person wishes to give out there money, more power to them!  But if the government wants to dole out my taxes, then we have a problem.

Glen Beck has said on more than one occation, "I have never gotten a job from a poor person, always some one who (had money or the rich)."

I think you're missing the point about the parable.  It's not a parable about the landowner.  It's not telling us whether it's okay to give people more than they deserve or not.  It's about the workers who were there all day.  It's telling us not to get upset when people get more than they deserve.  It doesn't matter who's giving them something they don't deserve, whether it's God, the government, or your next door neighbor.  Whatever the case, your reaction should be the same: don't be offended that they got more than they worked for.  The parable is a message about our human nature to get angry when people get a free ride.

Remember, I asked you if it was the cost to you that bothered you, or the fact that they got a free ride.  You're trying to turn it back to the cost now, with statements like "dole out my taxes."  If you're really hurting because of the amount of your taxes that goes to wellfare, that's one thing.  But if you're upset because they're getting something they didn't work for, that's a different thing.

Again, look at the parable, and ask yourself if you think who the message was for: was it aimed at people who related to the landowner?  Was it aimed at people who related with the workers who showed up last?  I'm suggesting that we're supposed to view it from the point of view of all day workers.  If all you take away is "a rich person can give their money away, and more power to'em," I fear you've missed an important bit of the bible's wisdom.

I went back and read the parable and I see that it really wouldn't apply either way.  In the begining it says, "The kingdom of heaven is like. . ."  So this parable has nothing to do with earthly wages or greed, but more over it is pointing out that we should be happy that others are saved and not worry about when they were.  Basically a person who has been saved since 6 years old shouldn't begrudge an 80 year old man who converted on his death bed.  It ends with "So the last will be first, and the first will be last" which sets up how we are to treat others.

The parable before is about the rich young man who doesn't have the right motivation in his heart and the one after is Jesus talking again about him dying.

What I have been trying to get at is that the government shouldn't be forcing me to be charitable or tell me what needs be fixed by taking taxes and then turning around and wasting it on pork barrel and people who just want a hand out.

Yes, it is about heaven.  But I would say that's not all it's about.  There's important wisdom there for more mundane aspects of life that shouldn't be missed.


Again, though, it's one thing if you're upset about the cost to you.  It's another thing if you're just upset about people not working.  If the cost of these things is really affecting your lifestyle, then yes, you have a real argument to make.  If, on the other hand, it's more that it just rubs you the wrong way to see people not working very hard, and still living well, then I think the problem is actually more internal to you, than with the system.  I think it'd be better for you to change, and learn to accept that sometimes people will get more than they deserve, and that's not in and of itself a problem, than to expect the system to change a great deal.  Be how the landowner tells the worker in the story to be:  be happy that you got what your work warranted.  Don't worry yourself so much that others get something without working as hard as you do.

Put another way:  don't wish unpleasant things on others, just because you've had to endure them.  Instead, wish that other people don't have to endure them.  Hope that people get more than they deserve from life, not only what they do deserve.  Hope that people end up with more than you, rather than hoping they end up with just as much.  Begrudging people benefits they get without working hard is a form of selfishness, and is something we should avoid.

Again, if you're complaining about the actual cost to you of these programs, that's a different issue, and we can discuss that.  But if it's more an issue of seeing people get stuff without working for it, a change of attitude change your life for the better more than will a change in the system.

I am not wishing others have less, I am wishing people would not be so lazy.  I don't begrudge what they have, but how they got it.

I see and am humbled by your words.  I did have those feelings looking back.  What I truely wish is that all people would not just get, but work to get.  This kind of links to the teaching that those that have here will not have in heaven, while those that don't have, will have there.

I see your point.  I will endevour to think better.

Thank you.

You know one thing I give FDR credit for, he tied welfare into work.  I think if we set up more programs like that, that people on welfare did some form of work, no matter how useless, I would not complain as much.  Perhaps some of them dig holes, some teach a course, some paint art, some organize the library, whatever, as long as it's some personal investment in exchange for what they get out, I would have a good deal less issue with the program.

I definitely am a fan of wellfare that is linked to working as well.  There's plenty of stuff that needs doing, but isn't "worth" doing in an economic sense, but which could very easily get done if our goal is just getting people employed.  Cleaning up public spaces, work on parks, etc., are all things that pretty much anyone can do without much training.  Even if they don't do a particularly good job of it, it's still of some benefit.  For some people, who are disabled, or injured, or whatever, it's not an option, but for people who can work, I'd support a program where they did some work for that wellfare check.  We shouldn't make it so much work so that they don't have time to look for other jobs, though.  But yeah, I agree with you on this one.

Even the disabled can do work.  Perhaps they check over reports for typos.  Perhaps they watch a video camera.  Right now we have thousands upon thousands of video cameras around critical infrastructure, and not nearly enough people to watch them all.

I got to thinking about my earlier additude about welfare recipients.  Tycho was right, I was angry that they had and I didn't, but I came to a realization today while driving the 2+ hours to my first stop.

They are stealing!

Now I am cool right now, calm, not angry.  What they are doing is taking tax money that they say they need and instead of being wise with the money, and maybe give back what they didn't use, they are buying things that they don't really need.

Why do they need that 40K lexus (approx)?  Why do they need designer cloths?  I don't, about the most designer I get is Levi shorts when their on sale.

I'm not upset anymore that they have, I am upset at the way they got it.

<calm, breathe in, breathe out, I'm okay>

To be fair, there are many people who do genuinely need the money.  There are people who did work but fell out of work, and still need money for food and rent, for their families.  There are also people who get welfare and 'deserve' it, but also have other sources of money (savings, gifts, loans, etc.) which may allow them to live better than they would otherwise.

That isn't to say there aren't people who don't abuse the system too.  I also don't think that means we should just say 'here, have some money', but attach it to something else so it is not preferable to looking for a real job.  But don't assume that all or even most people who get welfare don't have honest reasons, an honest need for it.

Can I ask this though?  Is it the governement's job to give anyone this money?  No where in the constitution does it say anything about welfare.  I believe it is private organizations, private citizens, and churches that are supposed to do this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

Can I ask this though?  Is it the governement's job to give anyone this money?  No where in the constitution does it say anything about welfare.

Is it specifically forbidden?

In reply to Falkus (msg #57):

Here is what is layed out in the Constitution for the Legislative branch in full.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



I don't see anything, anywhere in there.  Do any of y'all?

The bit about general welfare of the United States under taxation? Helping the poor, providing education and medical treatment to those who can't acquire it on their own, I'd say that qualifies as the general welfare of nation.

Reread the line:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Congress can collect taxes for blah blah the general welfare.  It doesn't mean that Congress has the power to spend that money on anything and call it "the general welfare".  In this case, like "common defense" refers to the powers of congress to maintain a navy, raise an army, and lead a militia, "general welfare" refers to those civil powers specifically enumerated.

And since the final amendment specifies that all powers not given to the federal government stay in the hands of the states (lower case) or the people, that means the federal government cannot provide that service.  Not that most people care.  We stopped sticking to the constitution well before FDR came around.

That's the Madison viewpoint, yes. I prefer the Hamilton interpretation. And Helvering v. Davis supports that interpretation.

No, they're not.  Stealing is taking from someone without permission.  Wellfare is given out, willingly.  You might say the government is stealing, by taking your tax money.  But the people on wellfare aren't stealing.  You can say they don't deserve the money, but that's different from stealing, and it brings us back to the parable.

Here's another spin on it:  right now, some people on wellfare really need it, and some people are abusing the system.  We could, if we put more effort and money into the system, do more to make sure that only the people who weren't abusing it go the money.  Would you be willing to spend more tax money on wellfare, in order to ensure that less people abused it?

Oh Hamilton...  You are correct, he would (and probably did) espouse that view.  I won't go into ad hominem attacks against Hamilton, but I will say, I prefer reading the words that are there, rather than squinting to read the words that aren't there.  The sentence says "the government can collect taxes for (these purposes)."  It then goes on to say what it can spend money on.  It wraps up by saying it can't do anything not specifically listed.

Also bumping this topic. Not sure who has been following the news, but there's actually been an audit of the Federal Reserve. The findings were astounding; $14 Trillion dollars in secret loans. Trillions still outstanding. Clear conflicts of interest and no accountability.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...e2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

And a little more sensational:
http://beforeitsnews.com/econo...artling-2449770.html

The counter-argument is that the fed needs to be able to work with autonomy and secrecy, since public knowledge of these things can negatively impact the economy, causing serious damage.

What do you think?

And as it turns out, hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus and American money has been routed to other countries that should have stayed here.  So much for a stimulus for America.  This is outsourcing of American tax dollars.  At least businesses have a good excuse to do it; our own government does not.

I think it is ridiculous that tax payers are held foot the bill because of people who were dishonest in the way this money was given out, or "loaned" out. Quite frankly, I think it's a joke that the tax payers had the opportunity to support these business and investment companies in the past, and as obvious as it should be, decided to not support them enough to keep them profitable, and now the government came in and made the people give support enough to make them profitable anyway.

In reply to katisara (msg # 64):

This is the classic problem of "Who watches the watchers."