Short Lesson on Federal Deficit

[xrayzebra]

For all you folks that worry about your Grandchildren having to pay
for the deficit. Here is a short lesson about the deficit.


Is there a federal deficit?

By Walter E. Williams

Apr 19, 2006

Let's push back the frontiers of ignorance about the federal deficit. To simplify things, I'll use round numbers that are fairly close to the actual numbers.

The nation's 2005 gross domestic product (GDP), what the American people produced, totaled $13 trillion. The federal government consumed $2.4 trillion, but it only received $2 trillion in tax revenues, leaving us with what's said to be a $.4 trillion budget deficit.

By the way, it's sheer constitutional ignorance to say that President Bush spends or lowers taxes. Article I, Sections 7 and 8, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to spend and tax. The president only has veto power that Congress can override.

Getting back to deficits, my question to you is this: Is there truly a deficit? The short answer is yes, but only in an accounting sense -- not in any meaningful economic sense. Let's look at it. If Congress spends $2.4 trillion but only takes in $2 trillion in taxes, who makes up that $.4 trillion shortfall that we call the budget deficit? Neither the Tooth Fairy, Santa nor the Easter Bunny makes up the difference between what's spent in 2005 and what's taxed in 2005.

Some might be tempted to answer that it's future generations who will pay. That's untrue. If the federal government consumes $2.4 trillion of what Americans produced in 2005, it must find ways to force us to spend $2.4 trillion less privately in 2005. In other words, the federal government can't spend today what's going to be produced in the future.

One method to force us to spend less privately is through taxation, but that's not the only way. Another way is to enter the bond market. Government borrowing drives the interest rate to a level that it otherwise wouldn't be without government borrowing. That higher interest puts the squeeze on private investment in homes and businesses, thereby forcing us to spend less privately.

Another way to force us to spend less privately is to inflate the currency. Theoretically, Congress can consume what we produce without enacting a single tax law; they could simply print money. The rising prices, which would curtail our real spending, would act as a tax. Of course, an important side effect of doing so would be economic havoc.

Some Americans have called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a method to rein in a prolific Congress. A balanced budget is no panacea. For example, suppose Congress spent $6 trillion and taxed us $6 trillion. We'd have a balanced budget, but we'd be far freer with today's unbalanced budget. The fact of business is that the true measure of the impact of government on our lives is not the taxes we pay but the level of spending.

The founders of our nation would be horrified by today's level of American servitude to their government. From 1787 to the Roaring '20s, federal government spending, as a percentage of GDP, never exceeded 4 percent, except in wartime, compared to today's 20 percent.

The average taxpayer, depending on the state in which he lives, works from Jan. 1 to May 3 to pay federal, state and local taxes. That means someone else decides how four months' worth of the fruits of the average taxpayer's labor will be spent. The taxpayer is forcibly used to serve the purposes of others -- whether it's farm or business handouts, food stamps or other government programs where the earnings of one American are taken and given to another.

This situation differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery. After all, a working description of slavery is the process where one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. The difference is a slave has no rights to what he produces each year, instead of just four months.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/04/19/193985.html

[2centsworth]

foreign investors own a lot of america's debt

that's not sound economic practice


for as educated a person and articulate a writer as walter williams is, he never ceases to amaze me with his stupidity
what's a lot? Are you vague because you don't know?


On the other hand the level of spending is out of control.


Present Value of America's debt equals $43 trillion. Total Assets for all American's including home equity equals $45 trillion. Now that's scarey.

[Burly_Man]

The founders of our nation would be horrified by today's level of American servitude to their government. From 1787 to the Roaring '20s, federal government spending, as a percentage of GDP, never exceeded 4 percent, except in wartime, compared to today's 20 percent.

So instead of "tax and spend" liberals, our government is now run by "spend and spend" conservatives?

Doesn't Professor Williams realize we are now engaged in the Global War on Terror?

[2centsworth]

i'm being deliberately vague because i can't keep up witht he amount because it grows every day


i believe that we owe japan 700 billion, china 200 billion, and great britain about 170 billion

that's just something i read in the newspaper awhile back

that's out of the 8.3 trillion federal debt

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm


i know that americans personally have much more private debt, which is where i think you got the 43 trillion dollar figure, bt i don't want to put words in your mouth

i also know that last year americans saved 0% of their pay, on average

which is down from 1% the year before :lol


GO REAGANOMICSSSSSSS
43 trillion is PUBLIC not Private.

Foreigners own a very small percentage of the national debt, somewhere in the 20% range.

[2centsworth]

and williams calls it "slavery" to work to pay for roads, healthcare, etc

i wonder what his reaction to thoreau would be...since dt refused to pay taxes to fund what he felt was an unjust wartake a visit to the GAO website and learn a little bit more about the budget and where money is spent. It will help your post if you don't mind logic.

[Ocotillo]

The founders of our nation would be horrified by today's level of American servitude to their government. From 1787 to the Roaring '20s, federal government spending, as a percentage of GDP, never exceeded 4 percent, except in wartime, compared to today's 20 percent.



They would also be horrified by the NSA spying on American citizens by their government.

They would also be horrified by an American president engaging in an elective war without a formal declaration from Congress.

They would also be horrified by "signing statements" over riding the will of the Congress as outlined in the constitution.

They would also be horrified by the Supreme Court deciding a presidential election and not allowing a state to conduct it's election as it see fit.

They would also be horrified that our government engaged in rendition and torture.

They would also be horrified at Ann Coulter.

Doc Williams seems to only reserve his outrage for things that pertain to taxes. :rolleyes

[Ocotillo]

Oh, yeah. One other thing regarding the good doctor's comment that federal government spending did not exceed 4% up to the "Roaring '20s", let's see what happened at that point? Oh yeah, the wheels fell off the economy and it took over a decade to recover and for the most part, things have gone swimmingly since.

[Ocotillo]

Quack, quack.

[Nbadan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0e/Walter_E._Williams.jpg/180px-Walter_E._Williams.jpg
If there's a conservative publisher, Williams probably collects a check from them

This is interesting, Williams also advocates seccession


Williams has gone on record as advocating the Free State Project in at least two columns and once on television. The Williams endorsement correlated with the largest single membership jump in the first 5000 phase of the project, a jump even higher than the results of the project being Slashdotted. He also believes in the right of states to secede from the union as was done in the U.S. in the 1860s[1] and has supported or been sympathetic toward various secessionist ideas in his writings.[2]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams)

[Nbadan]

Some might be tempted to answer that it's future generations who will pay. That's untrue. If the federal government consumes $2.4 trillion of what Americans produced in 2005, it must find ways to force us to spend $2.4 trillion less privately in 2005. In other words, the federal government can't spend today what's going to be produced in the future.

If the government consumes more than it takes in, it competes for scarce funds with private borrowers, raising the costs of borrowing for all borrowers in the form of higher interest rates. Economics 101. Williams knows better.

[Nbadan]

see what i'm saying dan

the man is obviously intelligent...but his brain just seems to fart before he can get out a complete thought

He's a shill, willing to sell his credentials for the larger conservative cause. Logic be damned.

[Nbadan]

It's defense contractors who are the new U.S. welfare state:

Top contractor Lockheed got contracts larger than budget of Congress, Dept. of Interior


WASHINGTON -- A new report claims that a "shadow government" of federal contractors has exploded in size over the last five years.

The document, compiled at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and distributed to RAW STORY, indicates that procurement spending increased by over $175 billion between 2000 and 2005, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending.

snip ...

That spending increase -- an astonishing 86 percent -- puts total US federal procurement at $377.5 billion annually. The increase means spending on federal contracts has grown more than two times as fast as other forms of discretionary government spending.

Rawstory (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Report_Federal_contracts_rise_86_under_0619.html)

Waxman claims that overcharging -- by mistake or outright fraud -- has been a frequent occurrance. In all, the report identifies 118 federal contracts worth $745.5 billion that have been found by government officials to include significant waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.

Each of the Bush Administration's three signature initiatives -- Homeland Security, the Iraq war and reconstruction in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina recovery -- has been linked to wasteful contract spending.

Spending is categorized in the report as highly concentrated on a few large contractors, with the five largest contractors receiving over 20 percent of contract dollars awarded in 2005. Last year, the largest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, received contracts worth more than the total combined budgets of the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Congress.

But the fastest growing contractor under the Bush Administration has been Halliburton. Federal spending on Halliburton contracts shot up an astonishing 600% between 2000 and 2005.

[xrayzebra]

If the government consumes more than it takes in, it competes for scarce funds with private borrowers, raising the costs of borrowing for all borrowers in the form of higher interest rates. Economics 101. Williams knows better.

Dan, did you bother to read the next paragraph in his column:

"One method to force us to spend less privately is through taxation, but that's not the only way. Another way is to enter the bond market. Government borrowing drives the interest rate to a level that it otherwise wouldn't be without government borrowing. That higher interest puts the squeeze on private investment in homes and businesses, thereby forcing us to spend less privately."

Your twin elpimpo4cc should take note also. Obviously you have
a reading problem.

[pussyface]

...what do you guys think the odds are that xray would have started this post if there was a Democrat in the White House running up record deficits?

xray, we all know you are not a fan of academia. Stop importing experts to intellectualize the preconceived beliefs you are already anchored in.

You sir are a partisan hack.
If Crossfire ever came back on the air, you would be a good choice to be the guy who takes the GOP position 100% of the time.

[fyatuk]

This is interesting, Williams also advocates seccession

I believe in a states right to seccede. The framers mind as revealed in the Declaration of Independence, combined with the 10th Amendment clearly illustrate that a State SHOULD have the right to leave the Union. Ever since Lincoln completely ignored that*, the 10th Amendment has become impotent and the entire structure of our government has become nearly intollerable.

*not that Lincoln was wrong for freeing slaves, just bad side effects.

[Nbadan]

"One method to force us to spend less privately is through taxation, but that's not the only way. Another way is to enter the bond market. Government borrowing drives the interest rate to a level that it otherwise wouldn't be without government borrowing. That higher interest puts the squeeze on private investment in homes and businesses, thereby forcing us to spend less privately."

That's like saying, we could slow your buying by simply making you pay your credit card debt, but instead we're gonna issue you an even higher-limit credit card at a higher rate and your higher payments will bury you.

[Ocotillo]

If the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House and we had this sort of deficit, Williams would be a deficit hawk.

[xrayzebra]

^^He would? I didn't know that.

[pussyface]

"^^He would? I didn't know that."--XRayZebra

Maybe he would maybe he wouldnt, but there is a 100% chance that you would be bitching about the deficit if a Dem was in the White House running up a record deficit.

What did you say when Clinton spent? You wrote him off as a "tax and spend liberal," didnt you?

Relative to Bush it is clear that he was more fiscally conservative, but your loyalty isnt to conservative principal (such as limited government and controlled government spending) but rather to the GOP.

This is the sort of pretzel you find yourself twisted into when you are a partisan hack. Someday, I hope that you free your mind of its self-imposed schakles.

The world could make do with one less zombie who responds to the inconsistencies, contradictions, and imperfections of their political party with about as much independent thought as Pavlov's dog.

[2centsworth]

what is this 43 trillion you speak of?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm


this is a link to a web page called "bureau of the public debt"

Current 06/16/2006
Debt Held by the Public: 4,797,775,283,721.39
Intragovernmental Holdings: 3,541,571,632,709.57
Total: 8,339,346,916,430.96


maybe this is easier for you:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

or you can look at this:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06169.pdfHere you go my man straight from the Comptroller General's Mouth.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/rotary61206/index.html

Click on the composition of government spending and the other links.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/rotary61206/img1.jpg

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/rotary61206/img6.jpg

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/rotary61206/img11.jpg

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/rotary61206/img9.jpg

[xrayzebra]

"^^He would? I didn't know that."--XRayZebra

Maybe he would maybe he wouldnt, but there is a 100% chance that you would be bitching about the deficit if a Dem was in the White House running up a record deficit.

What did you say when Clinton spent? You wrote him off as a "tax and spend liberal," didnt you?

Relative to Bush it is clear that he was more fiscally conservative, but your loyalty isnt to conservative principal (such as limited government and controlled government spending) but rather to the GOP.

This is the sort of pretzel you find yourself twisted into when you are a partisan hack. Someday, I hope that you free your mind of its self-imposed schakles.

The world could make do with one less zombie who responds to the inconsistencies, contradictions, and imperfections of their political party with about as much independent thought as Pavlov's dog.

Is this post you were referring to? What am I suppose to reply to?

The deficit never went down under Clinton. Look it up. It grew every
year. I have pointed this out to Dan several times.

I have a problem with any Congress spending as much as they have in
recent years. I have never said I agree with what they have done. It
is dumb. But the dimm-o-craps have said we have cut spending on
domestic programs, which is an out and out lie. No federal programs have
been cut dollar wise. I have a problem with the government supporting
all the crap they do.

What I am trying to do is make people understand when you talk about
deficit it is not like you having a debt. Government can satisfy any
debt by printing more money, raising taxes or other ways. None of them
are good, as far as I am concerned. The problem is that politicians and
people are the problem. They think government can fund any and all
projects. We have forgotten what government was create for. It is
not the end all of end all. Prime example in San Antonio the Gays and
Lesbians sued the City about funding and the courts sided with them,
the gays and Lisbon's. Think government was created to fund that
sort of thing? I don't.

That is what Williams was talking about.

Hey, I don't know you age, but the Old Time Democrats practice lots of
conservative ways many years ago. It is the Liberals once they got
control that did all the damage. Actually the dimm-o-craps should change
their name to Liberal party. The regressive party.

[pussyface]

The deficit never went down under Clinton. Look it up. It grew every
year. I have pointed this out to Dan several times.


Hey, I don't know you age, but the Old Time Democrats practice lots of
conservative ways many years ago. It is the Liberals once they got
control that did all the damage. Actually the dimm-o-craps should change
their name to Liberal party. The regressive party.

Wow. That post of yours was very telling. Let me explain.

First of all, any points about specifics are irrelevent to my argument. What I accuse you of is being a partisan robot. My overall point here is not to convince you that Bill Clinton was a great president or any other such nonsense. If you want me to take pot shots at Democrats all day, I will do so with great justification. I am no Democrat. I am an independent. I have principal and I think on my own. You should try it some time.

Your posts offer ample evidence that you start with your allegiance to the Republican party and work backwards from there. You are partisan at every turn. Your world view is rooted in allegiance to a party rather than any particular principal. Its sad. George Carlin would suggest that you are an idiot.

My ruthless indictment on your charachter is what I hoped you'd respond to. I think its telling you chose to repsond with stats about Clinton, when that was so clearly not the important part of my message to you.

You will find that you will not be able to predict my thoughts at every turn, as I will with you. This is because my beliefs are not predetermined by a governing body. I stand consistently for principles such as limited government and freedom for consenting adults to make whatever choices they wish so long as they do not infringde on others. Thats what im loyal to. Not a political party. That would be pathetic.

You can spare me the political rhetoric. If you want your intellectual dignity back, this is the place you might try to reclaim it.

[pussyface]

xray has no response because he can offer no evidence to contradict that he is indeed a partisan hack.

you sir have been exposed.
any future messages I write in response to you will be in the form of computer/robot code until you respond with something relevent.

[clambake]

pussyface is ON FIRE!!!!!! You can't expect followers to branch off and think on their own. Their conversations will only blossom with someone who is rowing within the same boat.

[Guru of Nothing]

Debating xray is like popping a zit.

It's an easy win that you quickly forget.

[2centsworth]

xray has no response because he can offer no evidence to contradict that he is indeed a partisan hack.

you sir have been exposed.
any future messages I write in response to you will be in the form of computer/robot code until you respond with something relevent.
you're in a thread discussing the federal deficit. Bring it.

[RandomGuy]

43 trillion is PUBLIC not Private.

Foreigners own a very small percentage of the national debt, somewhere in the 20% range.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt-foreign-share.gif

Try 45%

[RandomGuy]

Is this post you were referring to? What am I suppose to reply to?

The deficit never went down under Clinton. Look it up. It grew every
year. I have pointed this out to Dan several times.



The us government posted several budgetary surpluses under Clinton. That is by definition a reduction in the "deficit"

The fact that you use the term "deficit" in place of the correct term "debt" says volumes, to say nothing of the fact that you are ignoring the time value of money even when one substitutes the correct term in your post.

The overall debt in nominal terms did indeed get bigger under Clinton. Your assertion is correct, if one only looks at half the picture without meaningful context.

When one actually applies the time value of money, and looks at the debt in relation to the economy (time value of inflation subtracted from the time value of growth),
the overall debt as a percentage of the economy went down.

Meaning that our ability to pay the debt went up faster than the debt.

As I have pointed out to you several times the opposite has happened under Bush.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif

Yes or no, xray, Is the size of the overall debt growing faster than the economy is cause for concern?

[2centsworth]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt-foreign-share.gif

Try 45%

45% of new issues, but what percentage of total outstanding. Nevertheless, 45% is high whether even if it's only on new issues.

[2centsworth]

The us government posted several budgetary surpluses under Clinton. That is by definition a reduction in the "deficit"

The fact that you use the term "deficit" in place of the correct term "debt" says volumes, to say nothing of the fact that you are ignoring the time value of money even when one substitutes the correct term in your post.

The overall debt in nominal terms did indeed get bigger under Clinton. Your assertion is correct, if one only looks at half the picture without meaningful context.

When one actually applies the time value of money, and looks at the debt in relation to the economy (time value of inflation subtracted from the time value of growth),
the overall debt as a percentage of the economy went down.

Meaning that our ability to pay the debt went up faster than the debt.

As I have pointed out to you several times the opposite has happened under Bush.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif

Yes or no, xray, Is the size of the overall debt growing faster than the economy is cause for concern?

The size of the Debt is absolutely a concern. However, are you willing to admit why the debt is growing at such an extraordinary rate?

[RandomGuy]

The size of the Debt is absolutely a concern. However, are you willing to admit why the debt is growing at such an extraordinary rate?

Because the federal debt has been run up by 1.5 trillion dollars in the last 6 years due to an accumulation of federal budget deficits.

The blame rests on a congress composed of both Democrats and Republicans that are more concerned with the extreme short-term goal of getting themselves/their party re-elected and not with the long term interests of the nation.

During this time the budgets have been set by a congress and president from ONE party.
This system has rubber-stamped every pork-laden monstrosity that has been created.

As a former independent, I find the GOP betrayal of their fiscal principles especially galling. In the mid-90’s the GOP was all about fiscal discipline and dragged the Dems along with this agenda, but has since forgotten this entirely.

I hope that clarifies things.

[2centsworth]

Because the federal debt has been run up by 1.5 trillion dollars in the last 6 years due to an accumulation of federal budget deficits.

The blame rests on a congress composed of both Democrats and Republicans that are more concerned with the extreme short-term goal of getting themselves/their party re-elected and not with the long term interests of the nation.

During this time the budgets have been set by a congress and president from ONE party.
This system has rubber-stamped every pork-laden monstrosity that has been created.

As a former independent, I find the GOP betrayal of their fiscal principles especially galling. In the mid-90’s the GOP was all about fiscal discipline and dragged the Dems along with this agenda, but has since forgotten this entirely.

I hope that clarifies things.

That is too broad you need to be more specific. I gave you the courtesy of going through your charts, do the same and look at the charts I posted. It clearly shows why this country fiscally is in dire st8s.

[RandomGuy]

ah, the much reviled entitlement program bugaboo.

Raise taxes to pay for them.

before food stamps:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/06/hungry/fridge_lg.jpg

I don't mind taxes for: food, medicine, and generally keeping people in this country from starving and/or dying.

Social security will have to be reformed, sooner rather than later, granted.

BUT

Telling a drowning person that life preservers are too expensive doesn't cut it with me.

[2centsworth]

ah, the much reviled entitlement program bugaboo.

Raise taxes to pay for them.

before food stamps:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/06/hungry/fridge_lg.jpg

I don't mind taxes for: food, medicine, and generally keeping people in this country from starving and/or dying.

Social security will have to be reformed, sooner rather than later, granted.

BUT

Telling a drowning person that life preservers are too expensive doesn't cut it with me.You're being overly dramatic. No one is drowning or starving. We're just spoiled in this country. People in the Sudan and Congo are better examples of starving and drowning people.

If we make no cuts to social spending the GAO determined we will have to increase taxes by 250% just to pay existing obligations. That means average tax rates of 60% with a high of 90% or so.

What doesn't cut it with me is people who don't understand the benefits of capitalism and use tales of people starving and drowning to promote their socialist agenda. Look at the results of your socialist agenda around the world and then tell me if it fixes the problem of poor sick people.

[RandomGuy]

You're being overly dramatic. No one is drowning or starving. We're just spoiled in this country. People in the Sudan and Congo are better examples of starving and drowning people.

Actually I am not. That picture was taken in the US in 1963. The photographer was accompanying doctors that were performing a study on hunger and malnutrition in the US. The doctors indeed found children with distended stomachs eating a cup of rice or beans per day at starvation levels.

Human beings represent the most important asset any country has, period. This is true from an economic standpoint, and if we turn our back on our moral Christian duty to help our neighbors then my God have mercy on our souls.

I am NOT saying that we need to bankrupt ourselves through run-away entitlement programs. There are ways to provide assistance in a smart way.

There should be audits and systems in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and we should try to encourage self-sufficiency to be sure, but to eliminate all such assistance is immoral.

Given the choice I would rather have the life preservers on our ship than not. There will never be a perfect solution, and I am willing to accept some degree of fraud and waste to help the majority of those who have a genuine need for assistance and willing to pay taxes for that.

[xrayzebra]

RG, you want starving children. You can find them everyday here in San Antonio.
But it isn't because of a lack of food. It is because the parents aren't parents.
How many children have been beaten to death here in SA, in just the past few
months. How bout the child who was starved to death while the family was having
a nice Thanksgiving day dinner. We have poured about four TRILLION dollars into
welfare, and guess what, we still have poor people. Just look to New Orleans for
waste and the great welfare state. Sorry, but God helps those that help themselves.

[RandomGuy]

RG, you want starving children. You can find them everyday here in San Antonio.
But it isn't because of a lack of food. It is because the parents aren't parents.
How many children have been beaten to death here in SA, in just the past few
months. How bout the child who was starved to death while the family was having
a nice Thanksgiving day dinner. We have poured about four TRILLION dollars into
welfare, and guess what, we still have poor people. Just look to New Orleans for
waste and the great welfare state. Sorry, but God helps those that help themselves.

That's a very unchristian attitude.

[xrayzebra]

^^Why? I don't want people hungry. But you and I cant stop poverty. The
Government cant stop poverty. You can offer a helping hand. And I do, in my
own ways. But you cant support people for year after year after year after
generation after generation. Somewhere there has to be a stopping point. I am
speaking of the able bodied. People that are ill or have a serious disability, yes
they need help on a continual basis. But the able bodied. Get a job and take
care of your family.

[RandomGuy]

^^Why? I don't want people hungry. But you and I cant stop poverty. The
Government cant stop poverty. You can offer a helping hand. And I do, in my
own ways. But you cant support people for year after year after year after
generation after generation. Somewhere there has to be a stopping point. I am
speaking of the able bodied. People that are ill or have a serious disability, yes
they need help on a continual basis. But the able bodied. Get a job and take
care of your family.
I am NOT saying that we need to bankrupt ourselves through run-away entitlement programs. There are ways to provide assistance in a smart way.

There should be audits and systems in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and we should try to encourage self-sufficiency to be sure, but to eliminate all such assistance is immoral.

Given the choice I would rather have the life preservers on our ship than not. There will never be a perfect solution, and I am willing to accept some degree of fraud and waste to help the majority of those who have a genuine need for assistance and willing to pay taxes for that.

[pussyface]

"God helps those that helps themselves." XRAY

Great theological point! This is the sort of sentiment that should drive public policy.

Seperation of church/state=overrated.

[xrayzebra]

"God helps those that helps themselves." XRAY

Great theological point! This is the sort of sentiment that should drive public policy.

Seperation of church/state=overrated.

Another great Christian heard from. Gee what we do without them.
Cast not the first stone..............you know the rest.
:blah

[2centsworth]

"God helps those that helps themselves." XRAY

Great theological point! This is the sort of sentiment that should drive public policy.

Seperation of church/state=overrated.
You're original.:jack

[pussyface]

yeah man, I think its great when you bring your Biblically derived personal religious beliefs into the discussion of what public policy should be!

you are a great American and a uniquely principaled individual!

[pussyface]

Original?
What does that have to do with anything?

You don't have to be original when someone evokes their religiously conceived notions of who god helps vs who god doesn't help into a public policy debate.

[2centsworth]

Actually I am not. That picture was taken in the US in 1963. The photographer was accompanying doctors that were performing a study on hunger and malnutrition in the US. The doctors indeed found children with distended stomachs eating a cup of rice or beans per day at starvation levels.
do you live in the 60s? that was over 40 years ago.

[/quote]Human beings represent the most important asset any country has, period. This is true from an economic standpoint, and if we turn our back on our moral Christian duty to help our neighbors then my God have mercy on our souls.


we are helping by providing a system that encourages progress. There's a difference between helping and supporting. Americas poor would be considered kings in most other countries.

[quote]I am NOT saying that we need to bankrupt ourselves through run-away entitlement programs. There are ways to provide assistance in a smart way.
Quantify please.


There should be audits and systems in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and we should try to encourage self-sufficiency to be sure, but to eliminate all such assistance is immoral.
eliminate all, of course not, but it's not fraud that costing us the most it's the aging of the population. How much does society owe each individual?


Given the choice I would rather have the life preservers on our ship than not. There will never be a perfect solution, and I am willing to accept some degree of fraud and waste to help the majority of those who have a genuine need for assistance and willing to pay taxes for that.
the people who recieve the assitance of which you speak do not pay taxes. Virtually 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes.

[xrayzebra]

yeah man, I think its great when you bring your Biblically derived personal religious beliefs into the discussion of what public policy should be!

you are a great American and a uniquely principaled individual!

Yeah, I have to agree. You brought it up about the personal religious
beliefs. You big old hearted Christian. You are pretty generous with other
folks money. You know, like, taxes. Go suck a lemon, it will draw your
face up a little bit.

[pussyface]

nice personal attack. you are good at that.

you suggested public policy should reflect that "God helps those who help themselves." This was yr justification for why welfare should be out.

if you want to debate the worthiness of government welfare programs, thats fair. you and I would actually have a lot of common ground on that discussion.

but when you invoke your religious beliefs as justification for public policy, you lose any credibility. you are truly not worth arguing with because you are so obviously misguided at every turn. your worldview is little else other than a sad commentary on the state of America. you are an old, stale, twisted, partisan robot pretzel. kill yourself.

[xrayzebra]

nice personal attack. you are good at that.

you suggested public policy should reflect that "God helps those who help themselves." This was yr justification for why welfare should be out.

if you want to debate the worthiness of government welfare programs, thats fair. you and I would actually have a lot of common ground on that discussion.

but when you invoke your religious beliefs as justification for public policy, you lose any credibility. you are truly not worth arguing with because you are so obviously misguided at every turn. your worldview is little else other than a sad commentary on the state of America. you are an old, stale, twisted, partisan robot pretzel. kill yourself.

You didn't read the whole thread. I said nothing about "welfare should be
out". Go back and read what I said and then come back and tell me
your sorry.

[RandomGuy]

ITALICS=2centsworth

do you live in the 60s? that was over 40 years ago.

I do not live in the 60's. I use it as data that would support the thesis that doing absolutely nothing would be unconscienable.

we are helping by providing a system that encourages progress. There's a difference between helping and supporting. Americas poor would be considered kings in most other countries.

The old "they'd be rich in africa" saw. Yes indeed, they would be if you plunked them down in the developing world and give them the same level of US dollar income after all the assistance is accounted for.
Hungry/uneducated/unemployed/hopeless is the same in any country. We can't directly help the other 6 billion human beings on the planet, but we can really effect our own countrymen.


Quantify [smart ways to provide assistance] please.

Increase audits of programs, limit overall time on programs, add work provisions, etc. A good deal of these things have been done, such as the welfare reform done in the 90's.

eliminate all [fraud], of course not, but it's not fraud that costing us the most it's the aging of the population. How much does society owe each individual?

Freedom from hunger, a modicum of shelter, clothing, and basic medical care. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

the people who recieve the assitance of which you speak do not pay taxes. Virtually 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes

"Virtually 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes" is incorrect. I know you meant "income taxes to the federal government", right?

Let's use this as an opportunity to examine how taxation affects the poor.
They pay sales taxes that support local governments. Even with food stamps, you still gotta buy soap, clothes, transportation expenses. Even if you don't own a tiny house and pay property taxes, poorer americans still pay rent that is used to pay those taxes.

Most of even the poor still own at least a crappy car. That involves taxes at some point, even if you skip registration for a while.

Even those who don't pay income taxes still have 28% of their income gone in FICA, and other such mandatory federal taxes before they even get their paycheck.

I think it is a gross misconception to say that 50% of the people don't pay taxes. "The poor" pay their share of taxes and can least afford it.

Now let's examine the how poverty is defined. This goes back to your "rich people here are kings" meme.

There is a certain level of income in any country that will buy a very bare minimum of shelter, food/water, and clothing. If you really want to be a bit more realistic about it, you can also include some amount of health care. All the food in the world doesn't do you much good if you cut yourself get an untreated infection and die.
Beyond this bare minimum, you simply buy better food, better shelter, etc.

This is how we define poverty. If you take a dollar away from a person at or below this line, you force them to choose: shelter or food, clothing or food, utilities or clothing, etc. They must lose some vital part of what is physically necessary to sustain life.

[xrayzebra]

RG. There is little thing called "earned income credit". Ever heard of it. Like
you don't pay income tax, they send you money anyhow. How's that for being
nice. I think 2500.00 bucks to some is pretty nice, don't you?

[RandomGuy]

nice personal attack. you are good at that.

you suggested public policy should reflect that "God helps those who help themselves." This was yr justification for why welfare should be out.

if you want to debate the worthiness of government welfare programs, thats fair. you and I would actually have a lot of common ground on that discussion.

but when you invoke your religious beliefs as justification for public policy, you lose any credibility. you are truly not worth arguing with because you are so obviously misguided at every turn. your worldview is little else other than a sad commentary on the state of America. you are an old, stale, twisted, partisan robot pretzel. kill yourself.

The thing that really gets me is that what he advocates is far from God's will. Most people who say that tend to ignore what the bible really says.

Do this if you want to really throw something at him that he will have a hard time attacking:

Go here: http://www.biblegateway.com/

Do a search for the word "poor".

You end up with some interesting bits like this:

" 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you."Leviticus 25:35(New International Version)

There are indeed passages in there as well that encourage people to work honestly and not be lazy. But the kind of mean spiritedness that many conservatives advocate is not to be found.

Welfare, food stamps, et al. are entirely in the spirit and word of what it means to be Christian. If someone is having a hard time of things, you help them. It is better to be taken advantage of by the dishonest than to not offer to anybody at all. The dishonest get theirs eventually.

Again this is not to be careless or negligent with aid to others, but helping people in need is very much a perogative of God and not just Christianity and the Bible but every major religion. This is something that a lot of the so-called "Christian" conservatives ignore.

[pussyface]

how am I wrong? no matter what you said the principal that you introduced your private religious beliefs into a discussion of public policy will apply.

please apologize to humanity.

[RandomGuy]

RG. There is little thing called "earned income credit". Ever heard of it. Like
you don't pay income tax, they send you money anyhow. How's that for being
nice. I think 2500.00 bucks to some is pretty nice, don't you?

I indeed know about it. My family and I received it for the last two years, as well as food stamps for 8 months of that time when I was unemployed.

I finally managed to leverage my education into a decent job with health insurance (thank goodness), and my wife lucked into a job that allows her employment at workable terms with enough income to pay for the daycare that is required.

We have gone from public assitance to productive income tax-paying citizens, and I don't begrudge those taxes one bit. When you talk about lazy-ass people on food stamps, it irritates me because I had little choice and got off of them as soon as I could. The only thing that kept us from being homeless was debt that will take us years to pay off. There is little worse than seeing your pregnant wife break into tears because the bills aren't getting paid. Not everybody is out to cheat the system.

I would lastly point out as an accountant that the earned income tax credit was created to reflect the reality that poor people, even those who don't earn much money, still pay taxes. The credit level was calculated based on an estimate of how much poor people pay in various taxes at all levels. See my previous response to 2centsworth for details on what these taxes are.

[2centsworth]

The thing that really gets me is that what he advocates is far from God's will. Most people who say that tend to ignore what the bible really says.

Do this if you want to really throw something at him that he will have a hard time attacking:

Go here: http://www.biblegateway.com/

Do a search for the word "poor".

You end up with some interesting bits like this:

" 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you."Leviticus 25:35(New International Version)

There are indeed passages in there as well that encourage people to work honestly and not be lazy. But the kind of mean spiritedness that many conservatives advocate is not to be found.

Welfare, food stamps, et al. are entirely in the spirit and word of what it means to be Christian. If someone is having a hard time of things, you help them. It is better to be taken advantage of by the dishonest than to not offer to anybody at all. The dishonest get theirs eventually.

Again this is not to be careless or negligent with aid to others, but helping people in need is very much a perogative of God and not just Christianity and the Bible but every major religion. This is something that a lot of the so-called "Christian" conservatives ignore.
conservatism is a cure for poverty, liberalism is a crutch.

[2centsworth]

I indeed know about it. My family and I received it for the last two years, as well as food stamps for 8 months of that time when I was unemployed.

I finally managed to leverage my education into a decent job with health insurance (thank goodness), and my wife lucked into a job that allows her employment at workable terms with enough income to pay for the daycare that is required.

We have gone from public assitance to productive income tax-paying citizens, and I don't begrudge those taxes one bit. When you talk about lazy-ass people on food stamps, it irritates me because I had little choice and got off of them as soon as I could. The only thing that kept us from being homeless was debt that will take us years to pay off. There is little worse than seeing your pregnant wife break into tears because the bills aren't getting paid. Not everybody is out to cheat the system.

I would lastly point out as an accountant that the earned income tax credit was created to reflect the reality that poor people, even those who don't earn much money, still pay taxes. The credit level was calculated based on an estimate of how much poor people pay in various taxes at all levels. See my previous response to 2centsworth for details on what these taxes are.you and the excuses and sad story, give me a break. I paid my way through school, worked 4 jobs at one time and wasn't given crap. Be a man bills weren't paid because you didn't work or you spent too much money. It all makes sense you're a man full of excuses. Btw, I did mean income tax.

also, quoting leviticus is a joke.

[xrayzebra]

I indeed know about it. My family and I received it for the last two years, as well as food stamps for 8 months of that time when I was unemployed.

I finally managed to leverage my education into a decent job with health insurance (thank goodness), and my wife lucked into a job that allows her employment at workable terms with enough income to pay for the daycare that is required.

We have gone from public assitance to productive income tax-paying citizens, and I don't begrudge those taxes one bit. When you talk about lazy-ass people on food stamps, it irritates me because I had little choice and got off of them as soon as I could. The only thing that kept us from being homeless was debt that will take us years to pay off. There is little worse than seeing your pregnant wife break into tears because the bills aren't getting paid. Not everybody is out to cheat the system.

I would lastly point out as an accountant that the earned income tax credit was created to reflect the reality that poor people, even those who don't earn much money, still pay taxes. The credit level was calculated based on an estimate of how much poor people pay in various taxes at all levels. See my previous response to 2centsworth for details on what these taxes are.

Okay, what is the point. Didn't I say that a helping hand is okay.
Living off welfare is not okay. You prove my point.

Now, let me tell you something. Before this era, Texas was very poor.
It didn't make a damn bit of difference what race, color or whatever.

You want to impress me, you have. You worked yourself out of a hole,
I did too. Many have. People like you deserve a pat on the back.
But believe me, you are not out of the woods yet. ]

Let me give you a bit of advice, which you will make fun of, as will
others. Start paying yourself first. What does that mean. Well join
your friendly credit union. You want something, borrow the money
from them, pay it off early. Start a Money Market account and
put a little something in there every month. No I don't mean
savings account, I said Money Market account. Leave the damn
money there.

Borrow when you really need something. Nothing wrong with borrowing,
so long as you don't over extend yourself.

You need furniture or whatever, look for the no interest contracts.
Pay it off before the interest hits the books. Their loss, your gain.

I have been in your shoes. I have been in debt. I learned the hard
way. So listen to an old man. As you accumulate you will feel better,
you will have a better credit rating and it will become such a habit
that you cannot believe. I promise you.

[pussyface]

xrayzebra has the things he cares about in his daily life dictated to him by a political party.

your not even human anymore.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah, I know. Terrible isn't it. But I do have a normal face. I just
have to wonder what you are going to do. Like the drunk said to
Eleanor, I wake up sober in the morning, but you will still have your face.

One other little fact. You seem to be here worrying about me the last few
days. Could it be that you are a political wannabe. Come on in, the water
can be a little deep and cold and sometimes really hot. But it's all politics.
Except now days it affects the country and the world too.

[RandomGuy]

how am I wrong? no matter what you said the principal that you introduced your private religious beliefs into a discussion of public policy will apply.

please apologize to humanity.

(laughs)

I apologize unreservedly.

At some point one must make decisions about morality based on something. If it is not religion then it is still a code of ethics of some sort.

I make rational decisions based on information, but still in the end have to have some guiding principles.

I ask no one to believe the same things I believe in religious/spiritual terms.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, what is the point. Didn't I say that a helping hand is okay.
Living off welfare is not okay. You prove my point.

Now, let me tell you something. Before this era, Texas was very poor.
It didn't make a damn bit of difference what race, color or whatever.

You want to impress me, you have. You worked yourself out of a hole,
I did too. Many have. People like you deserve a pat on the back.
But believe me, you are not out of the woods yet. ]

Let me give you a bit of advice, which you will make fun of, as will
others. Start paying yourself first. What does that mean. Well join
your friendly credit union. You want something, borrow the money
from them, pay it off early. Start a Money Market account and
put a little something in there every month. No I don't mean
savings account, I said Money Market account. Leave the damn
money there.

Borrow when you really need something. Nothing wrong with borrowing,
so long as you don't over extend yourself.

You need furniture or whatever, look for the no interest contracts.
Pay it off before the interest hits the books. Their loss, your gain.

I have been in your shoes. I have been in debt. I learned the hard
way. So listen to an old man. As you accumulate you will feel better,
you will have a better credit rating and it will become such a habit
that you cannot believe. I promise you.

Thanks. Your advice is very sound and already being done. I am studying (most of the way there) for my CPA, so I know your advice is on the money.

My first investment is in the high-interest debt my family has accumulated. That year of unemployment while I was searching for a job was expensive.

I will not bother to save any money until the debt is paid off. Few investments allow the same certain return as one's own debt. My family's income has roughly quadrupled, but we have mostly stuck to the same living standard. It's all about the cash flow and net worth.

I will readily admit to a VERY negative net worth at the moment, unless one counts the education that was purchased with that debt. THAT investment will pay off heavily. But keeping our expenses low, we have slowly started to pay off that debt, and it feels great.

[RandomGuy]

conservatism is a cure for poverty, liberalism is a crutch.

(shrugs)

There is nothing wrong with a crutch if your leg is broken.

I can't and won't argue with these preconcieved notions of what "conservatism" and "liberalism" are.

If being conservative means turning my back on human misery, than stamp the yellow star of liberalism on my shirt sleeve, and ship me to the camps.

If being liberal means ignoring human potential, then off to siberia with my conservative butt for indoctrination.

[RandomGuy]

you and the excuses and sad story, give me a break. I paid my way through school, worked 4 jobs at one time and wasn't given crap. Be a man bills weren't paid because you didn't work or you spent too much money. It all makes sense you're a man full of excuses. Btw, I did mean income tax.

also, quoting leviticus is a joke.

It is good that you did so. So many of my classmates were simply there because their parents were just paying for their education. You probably appreciated your classes much more, as I did for having earned it. I financed the first four years of my education with the GI Bill thank you very much. It was grad school that really killed me.

I make no excuses. The assistance was there. I used it. I will readily admit I could have worked 4 jobs, but the 5th and 6th jobs of being a husband and a father is probably something you didn't have to worry about, was it? I used the time and assistance to search for better paying work and study.

It was stressful sacrificing money that I could have earned from jobs for good grades. My investment paid off, as I knew it would.

That is part and parcel of a social contract that any sensible society could and should make. Give someone the assistance for a period, and allow me the opportunity to use that to pull myself and my family out of poverty.

I now get to pay back into the system many times over.

The alternative is that I worked 4 jobs, tried to keep my marriage intact and never see my offspring. More than likely it would have ended in a divorce, and my wife would be forced to raise our two sons on her own with whatever assistance I could provide. I would not have the spare time/money to finish school, and the economy would not have the benefit of my education and talent for analysing information in a meaningful way. No assistance= no investment in human capital.

If you find the bible a joke, that is your concern.

[2centsworth]

(shrugs)

There is nothing wrong with a crutch if your leg is broken.

I can't and won't argue with these preconcieved notions of what "conservatism" and "liberalism" are.

If being conservative means turning my back on human misery, than stamp the yellow star of liberalism on my shirt sleeve, and ship me to the camps.

If being liberal means ignoring human potential, then off to siberia with my conservative butt for indoctrination.you're just self-righteous. I've probably done more for humanity than you have to this point.


No assistance= no investment in human capital. I'm not talking about taking away student loans.


If you find the bible a joke, that is your concern.
You quoted Leviticus totally out of context. Leviticus is old jewish traditions.

[RandomGuy]

If the bible is not your thing then mayhaps another book widely read:

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

[2centsworth]

If the bible is not your thing then mayhaps another book widely read:

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
You're obviously a humanitarian.

[RandomGuy]

you're just self-righteous. I've probably done more for humanity than you have to this point.


Galatians 5:19-21 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I have yet to insult you.

If my posts come off as self-righteous, my apologies. The intention was more to express deeply held beliefs in the virtue of helping others. I mentor, I help out with Voluntary Income Tax preparation, and teach local small business people the basics of accounting and economics for free when asked. Well maybe not entirely for free, I do accept an occasional taco and tea.


You quoted Leviticus totally out of context. Leviticus is old jewish traditions.

(shrugs)
Since I am wrong about the bible in some way, I will defer to you then.

In general what did jesus say about helping the poor?

[RandomGuy]

I say we need to be concerned about human misery.

You say:

You're being overly dramatic.

I say that I have accepted assistance when I have needed it for the sake of my family.

You say:


[RG, you are not a real man].


the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

Or am I taking this out of context as well?

[2centsworth]

Galatians 5:19-21 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I have yet to insult you.
I don't have hatred for you man. Like the scripture you just quoted I'm trying to point out how you're acting. If it came across as an insult I apologize too.


If my posts come off as self-righteous, my apologies. The intention was more to express deeply held beliefs in the virtue of helping others. I mentor, I help out with Voluntary Income Tax preparation, and teach local small business people the basics of accounting and economics for free when asked. Well maybe not entirely for free, I do accept an occasional taco and tea.
Life is all about helping others. We disagree on the role of the government in the plight to help people. The government should only provide short-term assistance in certain cases. However, democrats want the government to take care of large groups of people for a very long time. As I have shown, it's going to bankrupt the country.






(shrugs)
Since I am wrong about the bible in some way, I will defer to you then.

In general what did jesus say about helping the poor?
We should help the poor and that's why Christians are some of the most generous givers of their time and money to humanitarian causes.

Our disagreement comes from the ecomonic systems we support. I believe capitalism helps in the fight to help humanity more than does communism.

[Extra Stout]

There are countries where the social safety net works really well.

In Germany, they get unemployment insurance for however long they need it, and it comes to something like $25,000 a year for free.

In a country of 88 million, less than 1 million abused the system, and the German people were shocked it was that high.

Work ethic is so ingrained in their culture that the system was feasible.

If something like that were in place in the United States, I would not be surprised if 100 million people lived off the dole.

The old American dream was to work hard and get a little piece of the pie. The new American dream is to live comfortably while doing nothing.

The challenge in this country is to separate the people who really need help to get themselves back on their feet (like RG) from those who are just too lazy to work and are content to leech off the system forever.

We don't have a very functional national culture anymore and it precludes our ability to implement these grand schemes.

[2centsworth]

There are countries where the social safety net works really well.

In Germany, they get unemployment insurance for however long they need it, and it comes to something like $25,000 a year for free.

In a country of 88 million, less than 1 million abused the system, and the German people were shocked it was that high.

Work ethic is so ingrained in their culture that the system was feasible.

If something like that were in place in the United States, I would not be surprised if 100 million people lived off the dole.

The old American dream was to work hard and get a little piece of the pie. The new American dream is to live comfortably while doing nothing.

The challenge in this country is to separate the people who really need help to get themselves back on their feet (like RG) from those who are just too lazy to work and are content to leech off the system forever.

We don't have a very functional national culture anymore and it precludes our ability to implement these grand schemes.
They also have 10% unemployment.

[SA210]

Random Guy, I just want to say that I have the utmost respect for you beyond what words can express. You handle yourself very well with a high level of morality and intelligence. And obviously you have a big heart for the less fortunate and much forgotten.

For what it's worth, your story is a great one and just from another human being, I'd like to thank you for the human being that you are and the help that you give and the beliefs that you have.

The world needs more people like you. Great posts. :tu

[Extra Stout]

They also have 10% unemployment.
That's roughly 20% in the East, and 7% in the West.

It will take generations to undo the damage the Communists did to the eastern Länder. In the prosperous western Länder, which have been under (mixed) capitalism for 60 years, the system works OK.

But my point was, just because it works in Germany doesn't mean it will work here. They take a lot of trade-offs we would not accept. Very few people are poor over there, but very few are all that rich either, and while the middle-class standard of living is comfortable, it is less than what we have in the U.S. They are willing to trade opportunity for some added security, and are willing to follow the rules of the system. They aren't that way because some politician convinced them to be that way. They are that way because they are German, and that's just the way their society is.

The U.S., at least philosophically, favors greater economic dynamism in pursuit of opportunity. That's why people emigrated here. Unfortunately, thanks to rampant corruption and collusion between business magnates and the government, places like Italy and Singapore are more economically dynamic than the U.S., but at least in theory that's what we want, that's the nexus of our values.

Unfortunately, and this is getting back to my first point, we also have a big chunk of our society that doesn't believe in following the rules, that is not willing to work for the greater good, that is all about getting theirs and telling everyone else to go f*** themselves. This manifests itself everywhere from people who don't want to work and are looking for a handout, to wealthy folks at the top of the corporate food chains who pay one another hundreds of millions of dollars a year because nobody can stop them.

That latter cultural value is a big reason why Third World countries are the way they are. It does not portend great things for our future. And it certainly it not something government has any power to solve, although we certainly see it manifest all over our government in both parties.

[2centsworth]

That's roughly 20% in the East, and 7% in the West.

It will take generations to undo the damage the Communists did to the eastern Länder. In the prosperous western Länder, which have been under (mixed) capitalism for 60 years, the system works OK.

But my point was, just because it works in Germany doesn't mean it will work here. They take a lot of trade-offs we would not accept. Very few people are poor over there, but very few are all that rich either, and while the middle-class standard of living is comfortable, it is less than what we have in the U.S. They are willing to trade opportunity for some added security, and are willing to follow the rules of the system. They aren't that way because some politician convinced them to be that way. They are that way because they are German, and that's just the way their society is.

The U.S., at least philosophically, favors greater economic dynamism in pursuit of opportunity. That's why people emigrated here. Unfortunately, thanks to rampant corruption and collusion between business magnates and the government, places like Italy and Singapore are more economically dynamic than the U.S., but at least in theory that's what we want, that's the nexus of our values.

Unfortunately, and this is getting back to my first point, we also have a big chunk of our society that doesn't believe in following the rules, that is not willing to work for the greater good, that is all about getting theirs and telling everyone else to go f*** themselves. This manifests itself everywhere from people who don't want to work and are looking for a handout, to wealthy folks at the top of the corporate food chains who pay one another hundreds of millions of dollars a year because nobody can stop them.

That latter cultural value is a big reason why Third World countries are the way they are. It does not portend great things for our future. And it certainly it not something government has any power to solve, although we certainly see it manifest all over our government in both parties.
let me restate, 4.8% in the US and 12.1% in Germany. Germany is an example of using capitalism to change society for the better. Nevertheless, your point is well taken and I agree with a lot of what you say.

[2centsworth]

Random Guy, I just want to say that I have the utmost respect for you beyond what words can express. You handle yourself very well with a high level of morality and intelligence. And obviously you have a big heart for the less fortunate and much forgotten.

For what it's worth, your story is a great one and just from another human being, I'd like to thank you for the human being that you are and the help that you give and the beliefs that you have.

The world needs more people like you. Great posts. :tu
more self-righteousness. He's moral because he's a democrat. Conservatism solves the problems of the less fortunate, liberalism empathizes with the problems.

[SA210]

more self-righteousness. He's moral because he's a democrat. Conservatism solves the problems of the less fortunate, liberalism empathizes with the problems.
With all due respect, my post was directed at Random Guy for a very particular reason. You have made your point and stance very obvious and it goes against what both of us beleive in, and I'm not talking from a Democrats standpoint. By the way, I'm not a Democrat.

I'm speaking of certain morals and values, particularly from a Christian standpoint. I happened to really enjoy what he had to say. That doesn't make someone self-righteous. If you feel that having that belief takes anything away from you in anyway, I apologize, but maybe it's something inside you, that you could look at.

I just wanted to thank him.

[2centsworth]

With all due respect, my post was directed at Random Guy for a very particular reason. You have made your point and stance very obvious and it goes against what both of us beleive in, and I'm not talking from a Democrats standpoint. By the way, I'm not a Democrat.

I'm speaking of certain morals and values, particularly from a Christian standpoint. I happened to really enjoy what he had to say. That doesn't make someone self-righteous. If you feel that having that belief takes anything away from you in anyway, I apologize, but maybe it's something inside you, that you could look at.

I just wanted to thank him.Just take note that the most generous people are Christian Conservatives.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

[Extra Stout]

let me restate, 4.8% in the US and 12.1% in Germany. Germany is an example of using capitalism to change society for the better.
At 4.8%, the U.S. is nearly at full employment. There is a certain level of structural unemployment as people move between jobs.

Basically, in the United States, if you want a job, you can get one.

What's interesting, though, when you look into those unemployment numbers, is that in both countries, 47% of the population is employed. In both countries, roughly 70% of the population is of working age.

In the United States, the labor force is a smaller percentage of the population, despite the relative ease of finding work compared to Germany.

Apparently we have a contingent of people who could find jobs, but simply choose not to work.

And it is less common in Germany to have a two-income household than in the United States, so it can't be explained away as a bunch of stay-at-home moms.

I think we have a bunch of people perfectly able to work who simply prefer to sit on their lazy asses and look for a handout. They don't get listed as unemployed because they aren't counted as part of the workforce.

I really am not meaning to argue about the relative pros and cons of the German system vis-a-vis the American system. In Germany, I would not have had the freedom of self-determination in my career. People usually do what their fathers have done there. They are content to be a cog in the machine. I prefer the American system. I think the numbers show that our system, even with its flaws, has job opportunities that are being left unexploited.

My argument is that a lot of our problems are more related to the disintegration of basic morality within the social contract, and that this disintegration is in keeping with what is found in Third World countries, and that it is not something government can fix because it is ingrained in the culture.

Oh, by the way, I'm not making the "we need more religion so we can be moral" argument.

[2centsworth]

At 4.8%, the U.S. is nearly at full employment. There is a certain level of structural unemployment as people move between jobs.

Basically, in the United States, if you want a job, you can get one.

What's interesting, though, when you look into those unemployment numbers, is that in both countries, 47% of the population is employed. In both countries, roughly 70% of the population is of working age.

In the United States, the labor force is a smaller percentage of the population, despite the relative ease of finding work compared to Germany.

Apparently we have a contingent of people who could find jobs, but simply choose not to work.

And it is less common in Germany to have a two-income household than in the United States, so it can't be explained away as a bunch of stay-at-home moms.

I think we have a bunch of people perfectly able to work who simply prefer to sit on their lazy asses and look for a handout. They don't get listed as unemployed because they aren't counted as part of the workforce.

I really am not meaning to argue about the relative pros and cons of the German system vis-a-vis the American system. In Germany, I would not have had the freedom of self-determination in my career. People usually do what their fathers have done there. They are content to be a cog in the machine. I prefer the American system. I think the numbers show that our system, even with its flaws, has job opportunities that are being left unexploited.

My argument is that a lot of our problems are more related to the disintegration of basic morality within the social contract, and that this disintegration is in keeping with what is found in Third World countries, and that it is not something government can fix because it is ingrained in the culture.

Oh, by the way, I'm not making the "we need more religion so we can be moral" argument.
excellent post as usual and I think you're dead on.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have hatred for you man. Like the scripture you just quoted I'm trying to point out how you're acting. If it came across as an insult I apologize too.

:wow Great Ceasar's ghost, I think we might have a first in the political forum!!
A conservative and a liberal have stopped insulting each other long enough to talk rationally and respectfully. I am actually going to surprise the heck out of you with what I will say in the next few paragraphs. Hopefully we can help puncture the overly negative "liberal/conservative" stereotypes that seems to be the norm in American political life.


Life is all about helping others. We disagree on the role of the government in the plight to help people. The government should only provide short-term assistance in certain cases. However, democrats want the government to take care of large groups of people for a very long time. As I have shown, it's going to bankrupt the country.

Life is all about helping others, this we can agree on 100%. We don't entirely disagree on the role of goverment in helping each other. The government should provide short-term "life-preserver" type assistance. Long time help depends on the circumstances.

Social security for those who have worked their whole lives is reasonable. As we both accede, benefits will have to be scaled back to avoid massive tax increases.

"Welfare" and associated programs represent a much more intractable problem. Give up on children in bad situations, and they will be shoving guns in your face when they are old enough. It is more expensive to keep a felon locked up for 25-life than it is to spend a bit extra on health care, nutrition, and education for that person for 18 years.

I am as against unlimited "give-aways" as you are. I think welfare-to-work provisions and similar are good things. As we have discussed previously, there are ways of doing this smartly, so that we don't foster dependence.

Medicare/Medicaid is another difficult conundrum. I get the sneaking suspicion that these programs are milked more by greedy doctors than anything else. I have no data to support this, but would be interested to see if there have been studies done. I do have a co-workers anecdotal story of his diabetic mother on Medicaid: She was seeing a certain doctor on a weekly basis even though her prognosis was stable. Her son questioned this, and her condition was magically upgraded to the point that she didn't have to come in but once a month for check-ups.

This is where auditing and reviewing pays for itself. There should be a balance between making it easy enough for doctors to want to take on medicare patients, and hard enough to prevent most fraud.

I am all about doing things, and don't mind higher taxes to pay for them. I think we can avoid a LOT of tax raises in the future, if we start paying down our national debt now. A certain amount of US government debt is good and even desirable, but I think we are waaaaaay over that amount. That is one thing I think you and I also agree on.


We should help the poor and that's why Christians are some of the most generous givers of their time and money to humanitarian causes.

I agree. One thing that government does provide is an economy of scale and pooling of expertise.


Our disagreement comes from the ecomonic systems we support. I believe capitalism helps in the fight to help humanity more than does communism.

This is where you are very wrong about one thing: I don't think communism is a good idea. :lol

Communism looks good on paper, but it completely ignores real human behavior. It also does not allow human beings to reach their full potential. Capitalism does, but unrestrained capitalism is almost as unhealthy as communism.

You can't run a football game without rules or referees, and you can't run an economy without laws, courts, and governmental oversight of some sort. The SEC is a great idea and example of this. Transparency and fair-play have to be imposed to some degree, otherwise you end up with robber barons and more poverty as capital is wasted on unproductive scams.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy, I just want to say that I have the utmost respect for you beyond what words can express. You handle yourself very well with a high level of morality and intelligence. And obviously you have a big heart for the less fortunate and much forgotten.

For what it's worth, your story is a great one and just from another human being, I'd like to thank you for the human being that you are and the help that you give and the beliefs that you have.

The world needs more people like you. Great posts. :tu

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

more self-righteousness. He's moral because he's a democrat. Conservatism solves the problems of the less fortunate, liberalism empathizes with the problems.


Heh, I WAS an independent, leaning toward the GOP until the Bush presidency. I think that radicals have taken over the GOP and see the only real counterbalace to that as being active in the Democratic party. Unfortunately, I think the leaders of both parties are myopic jackasses.
Not that I am in love with being cynical. I do think that it is possible to be in politics and genuinely care about the public good.

[RandomGuy]

At 4.8%, the U.S. is nearly at full employment. There is a certain level of structural unemployment as people move between jobs.

Basically, in the United States, if you want a job, you can get one.

What's interesting, though, when you look into those unemployment numbers, is that in both countries, 47% of the population is employed. In both countries, roughly 70% of the population is of working age.

In the United States, the labor force is a smaller percentage of the population, despite the relative ease of finding work compared to Germany.

Apparently we have a contingent of people who could find jobs, but simply choose not to work.

And it is less common in Germany to have a two-income household than in the United States, so it can't be explained away as a bunch of stay-at-home moms.

I think we have a bunch of people perfectly able to work who simply prefer to sit on their lazy asses and look for a handout. They don't get listed as unemployed because they aren't counted as part of the workforce.

I really am not meaning to argue about the relative pros and cons of the German system vis-a-vis the American system. In Germany, I would not have had the freedom of self-determination in my career. People usually do what their fathers have done there. They are content to be a cog in the machine. I prefer the American system. I think the numbers show that our system, even with its flaws, has job opportunities that are being left unexploited.

My argument is that a lot of our problems are more related to the disintegration of basic morality within the social contract, and that this disintegration is in keeping with what is found in Third World countries, and that it is not something government can fix because it is ingrained in the culture.

Oh, by the way, I'm not making the "we need more religion so we can be moral" argument.

excellent post as usual and I think you're dead on.

... to borrow from 2cents... :lol

I would like to get a bit more solid data to really find the answer. There is a big danger in letting anecdotes run policy, or for that matter form opinions.