Obama wants to spread the wealth around

[Bev in B'ville]

the sense of entitlement propogated on this particular thread. I've stated before that both my husband and I came from poor backgrounds. We both made smart decisions about our lives, went to college (with no help from parents), and consider ourselves successful. My father dropped out of school in the 7th grade to support his family (he was 1 of 12 children). I never once heard him say the government "owed" him anything, even after he fought in WWII.

 

If you've ever listened to criminals who rob homes, they have a similar sense of entitlement and no ambition to work for the things they steal. What have they done for themselves? That's the question. Even JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

 

I've never mentioned what my husband does for a living, but I think it's pertinent here. He's a consultant; he uses both his engineering background (his bachelor's degree) and his MBA to help companies. Specifically companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. He goes in and helps them retool, reorganize, and reorder their organization to make it work so they won't have to lay off at all or as many people or go bankrupt. He doesn't work with small companies; he takes on the big companies with 100's of thousands of workers. The point is, my dh works really hard at his job. All nighters are not uncommon as he is always working towards a deadline, usually the organization's finances dictate the deadline. He's pulling one tonight as a matter of fact after getting up at 5:00 this morning to fly out.

 

What incentive would he possibly have to work this hard if the money he earns from his hard work is taken, basically at the point of a gun (which government will do when it sends the police to your house for not paying taxes)? None, he might as well get a 40 hour a week job so he can come home at night to his family (maybe he should start practicing "Would you like fries with that?"). Then he could earn the same amount as everyone else. And what happens to those who work for my husband? And what happens to the organizations he doesn't help?

 

The supposition of this thread is that everybody is intrinsically motivated. That is, people will work hard for the self-satisfaction of doing a job well. While most people do take satisfaction in their jobs, extrinisic motivation is usually the driving factor. Whether it be fame or fortune, most people enjoy the fruits of their labor. And, no, I'm not talking about the greedy men on Wall Street who partially precipitated the current economic crisis. I'm talking about the average Joe, like my husband. My dh likes his job and gets a lot of satisfaction out of it, but he won't do it if it means that he's going to be earning the same as everyone else. With hard work comes rewards. Even my 15 yo dd who's taking AP Econ this year seems to understand the basics behind our economy well enough to know that this "spreading the wealth" is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Whatever happened to working hard to better yourself and your family? Where did this sense of entitlement come from? I imagine in my mind the police standing at our door demanding money with all those people who think they are "owed" standing behind them with their hands out. Where does it stop? Should we all drive the same style car? Live in the same style house? Have exactly the same number of children? When you let government take control of a part of your lives, they own you. If they, for example, have control over your healthcare, they can tell you to vaccinate your children (even if you don't want to), they can tell you an operation is not essential, they can start making quality of life decisions for YOU!

 

Without the intention of bragging here, we give a substantial part of our money to private charity already. That's where charity belongs, in the private sector, not having government take it away by force and given to people who make choices in their lives that do not have the desired outcomes.

[kokotg]

 

What incentive would he possibly have to work this hard if the money he earns from his hard work is taken' date=' basically at the point of a gun (which government will do when it sends the police to your house for not paying taxes)? [/quote']

 

Did your husband work hard when Clinton was president?

[Bev in B'ville]

Did your husband work hard when Clinton was president?

 

during the early years of that presidency and my dh was building his expertise, so he was not earning as much. In fact, under Obama's plan, he would have qualified for a tax cut. That's a hoot. I'll have to tell him.

[Aggie]

 

Do a little googling about the concentration of wealth in this country. The middle class is getting squeezed out. I don't think a little spreading of the wealth would be a horrible thing. But I think it's silly to call it socialism.

 

If "building up from the bottom up" is socialism, then what is it when the government gives money to rich people? I do think that we would all be better off if we weren't so darned greedy and egocentric. I can't begin to imagine that families making $250,000/year would consider themselves middle class, nor be really hurt by paying their fair share of taxes.

 

Live simply that others may simply live. And all that.

 

I don't care what it's called; helping one's neighbor is the compassionate and *right* thing to do. That's called being a community. It is the moral and ethical thing to do. I always find it ironic that the Christians are the ones with the least Christian attitude toward their fellow man. (I'm not talking all of you, but you know who you are.) So many people cite the Bible and religious doctrine, unless it doesn't fit into the ideology they are spouting.

'

 

However, Amy, some of us would rather the 'community' not have the government involved. We (dh and I) are generous, but we choose our charities *very* carefully. When our hard-earned money is doled out, there is some accountability. Not so with the government.

 

And, until I see Obama and other senators giving extra money voluntarily to government programs, I've not much use for those programs. Or those who want to increase them.

 

I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that Congress would make themselves subject to any tax increases. There will be loopholes for them, but not for businesses that we average people deal with daily. And, as a business owner on this board stated, the businesses will just pass the savings on to us.

 

How much extra money have you voluntarily contributed to the government over the last years? I'll almost wager a bet that you give more to private foundations.

 

Aggie

[Guest janainaz]

My dh's brother is a CPA and his wife is some kind of rocket scientist - honestly, I don't think I'm quite even able to comprehend what she does............

 

Their firstborn son was in daycare from 3 months old. They bought over a million dollar home and are big braggars of their 401k, building their wealth and yada yada.

 

My dh cashed in his measley $7,000 401k to prepare in case he loses his job with this economy. His brother looks at him like a FOOL!! "What about the FUTURE?" and "I don't want my kids to have to take care of me......".

 

It angers me to no end. These are the people (for the most part) who are whining and complaining. They have their big screen TVs, big houses, big savings, fancy cars, every time my husbands brother is around him he has something new to show him, something he bought. He does not get it that we think differently. I refuse to go along with the masses. Everyone can ooooh and ahhh over the future of this country and I say a great depression would cause people - some of them - to wake up!

 

I am not going to spend the best years of my life in an office and put my kids in daycare. I am going to enjoy what is given and not snub up my nose like I earned it. I am so tired of hearing it. I know a lot of families that are doing their best, they really are trying to keep it simple and they are struggling. Good people. The poor - I don't care what their circumstance is, I feel compassion. Period.

 

I could be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow. I watched my mother in law die - wither away - literally of cancer. She adopted 5 kids - they were still young and God took her. He left my dh's father with all those kids AND a handicapped daughter who needs full-time care. But, guess what, I have seen and witnessed the hand of God take care of this man. He is raising beautiful daughters and taking care of him. Does he have 401k? No. He was and is a man that has always given - freely. He lives for today and God sustains him and he has cared well for these kids.

 

Life is not fair. That is the way it goes. My MIL was the one paniced and worried and yet her life was taken from her! She did not expect it! All her worry and whining did not add a single day! All for nothing. It's all a big chasing after the wind.

[Nestof3]

I think some people are SO stuck on Obama's race

 

Totally not me -- I don't care what your race, gender or looks are. I just want a good president. Moreover, I think having good citizens is even more important.

 

I think one could wonder likewise how many people will be voting BECAUSE of race -- meaning for Obama because of his race.

[kokotg]

during the early years of that presidency and my dh was building his expertise' date=' so he was not earning as much. In fact, under Obama's plan, he would have qualified for a tax cut. That's a hoot. I'll have to tell him.[/quote']

 

I had to double check your kids' ages to make sure he was even likely working during the Clinton years. My DH was mostly in college then....and didn't always work as hard as he should have ;)

 

Seriously, though, I know I'm being flip here, but I'm being flip in service of a point, which is that Obama is not proposing some sort of radical new tax structure the likes of which this country has never seen. He's proposing a middle class tax cut and a return to Clinton-level taxation for the top 5% of wage earners. In short, he's a modern Democrat--which means he's an economic centrist relative to the populism of the early part of the 20th century.

 

There certainly ARE arguments to be made against traditional Democratic economic policies--and I always hesitate to post about pure economic theory, because I know some of you can make them much more competently than I can counter them (do you think I could talk Paul Krugman into coming here to post ;))--but the effective argument is not to scream "socialism!" and run away (not saying you were doing that, Bev!)

Edited October 14, 2008 by kokotg

[Aggie]

Totally not me -- I don't care what your race, gender or looks are. I just want a good president. Moreover, I think having good citizens is even more important.

 

I think one could wonder likewise how many people will be voting BECAUSE of race -- meaning for Obama because of his race.

 

True. Did you hear Howard Stern's interviews with a few voters?:glare:

[Laura K (NC)]

Looks like we are well on our way to becoming a nation full of "Why try harder?"

 

Gee, work hard and get what you want, or don't work and get what you want. I wonder which one many Americans will choose?

[Amy in NH]

Taxes were lower during Reagan than during Clinton, and wavered back down again during the current Bush.

 

Yabbut http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

 

Reagan inherited the lowest National Debt since 1931 and ran it up to 3 trillion dollars!

 

You even said "they [taxes] haven't changed much overall since 1969". Yet with those slightly higher (on the wealthy) taxes, Clinton managed to balance his budget, achieve record surpluses AND pay down the national debt.

 

And now, here we are with 10 TRILLION dollars of debt again with the Republicans spouting the same "trickle down" Reaganomics that got us here before.

 

I will repeat, once again, that the tax and debt situation is a matter of Republicans wanting to buy everything on credit for someone else to pay later (so they don't have to take the political heat now), and the Democrats wanting to pay as they spend.

[Haiku]

 

Do a little googling about the concentration of wealth in this country. The middle class is getting squeezed out. I don't think a little spreading of the wealth would be a horrible thing.

 

Yep. What's that quote about a rising tide lifting all boats? Well, the tide doesn't rise from the top. When most of the people in a country are doing well, the country does well. When just a few of the people in a country are doing well, well, the country is not doing well. Giving more to the rich and less to the poor does not "rise" the tide. A recent Republican president had a term for that: he called it "voodoo economics."

 

Tara

[Guest janainaz]

the sense of entitlement propogated on this particular thread. I've stated before that both my husband and I came from poor backgrounds. We both made smart decisions about our lives' date=' went to college (with no help from parents), and consider ourselves successful. My father dropped out of school in the 7th grade to support his family (he was 1 of 12 children). I never once heard him say the government "owed" him anything, even after he fought in WWII.

 

If you've ever listened to criminals who rob homes, they have a similar sense of entitlement and no ambition to work for the things they steal. What have they done for themselves? That's the question. Even JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

 

I've never mentioned what my husband does for a living, but I think it's pertinent here. He's a consultant; he uses both his engineering background (his bachelor's degree) and his MBA to help companies. Specifically companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. He goes in and helps them retool, reorganize, and reorder their organization to make it work so they won't have to lay off at all or as many people or go bankrupt. He doesn't work with small companies; he takes on the big companies with 100's of thousands of workers. The point is, my dh works really hard at his job. All nighters are not uncommon as he is always working towards a deadline, usually the organization's finances dictate the deadline. He's pulling one tonight as a matter of fact after getting up at 5:00 this morning to fly out.

 

What incentive would he possibly have to work this hard if the money he earns from his hard work is taken, basically at the point of a gun (which government will do when it sends the police to your house for not paying taxes)? None, he might as well get a 40 hour a week job so he can come home at night to his family (maybe he should start practicing "Would you like fries with that?"). Then he could earn the same amount as everyone else. And what happens to those who work for my husband? And what happens to the organizations he doesn't help?

 

The supposition of this thread is that everybody is intrinsically motivated. That is, people will work hard for the self-satisfaction of doing a job well. While most people do take satisfaction in their jobs, extrinisic motivation is usually the driving factor. Whether it be fame or fortune, most people enjoy the fruits of their labor. And, no, I'm not talking about the greedy men on Wall Street who partially precipitated the current economic crisis. I'm talking about the average Joe, like my husband. My dh likes his job and gets a lot of satisfaction out of it, but he won't do it if it means that he's going to be earning the same as everyone else. With hard work comes rewards. Even my 15 yo dd who's taking AP Econ this year seems to understand the basics behind our economy well enough to know that this "spreading the wealth" is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Whatever happened to working hard to better yourself and your family? Where did this sense of entitlement come from? I imagine in my mind the police standing at our door demanding money with all those people who think they are "owed" standing behind them with their hands out. Where does it stop? Should we all drive the same style car? Live in the same style house? Have exactly the same number of children? When you let government take control of a part of your lives, they own you. If they, for example, have control over your healthcare, they can tell you to vaccinate your children (even if you don't want to), they can tell you an operation is not essential, they can start making quality of life decisions for YOU!

 

Without the intention of bragging here, we give a substantial part of our money to private charity already. That's where charity belongs, in the private sector, not having government take it away by force and given to people who make choices in their lives that do not have the desired outcomes.[/quote']

 

 

People are tithing to the church, so it can pay it's light bill. A LOT of money that SHOULD be used to help the poor is being used to run another institution. A lot of people hand over their money and don't know where it's really going. This whole thing is not black and white. There is a lot of gray here and we are all to blame. Our society is a mess.

[kokotg]

Looks like we are well on our way to becoming a nation full of "Why try harder?"

 

Gee, work hard and get what you want, or don't work and get what you want. I wonder which one many Americans will choose?

 

It would be interesting, actually, to see a study showing how/whether worker productivity is affected by tax rates. I searched right quick and found something indicating that US workers are most productive, but only if you don't factor in hours worked. I.e., they're more productive because they work longer hours (I don't consider the sacrifice of family to the marketplace to be a good thing). When you look at productivity per hour, the US falls behind. Overall, the study didn't seem to look at taxation as a factor.

 

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200709/labor.html

[Melissa in FL]

It sounds like you have many responsibilities and kudos to you for caring about the future of your children, and for stepping up to support your parents.

 

I have to say, though, that you are the first family that I have heard of making over a quarter million dollars a year and having to survive on cream of mushroom soup. I think yours may be an exceptional case.

 

I have to say we don't make $250,000 (or anywhere near it), but I've counted 6 different ways Obama will raise my taxes without "raising" our federal income tax. Are you saying your family will not be affected with his gas tax hike? Just curious. I know some will say maybe we should take the bus, but buses around here have cut back their running because the communities can't afford the gas right now. He's very much into using taxes to be fair, not to make money for the government. Just go to youtube and rewatch his response to raising the Capital gains tax. By raising it he will lower the amount of money the US will earn on capital gains and hurt those of use who have capital gains, but of course he's still planning on raising it to be "fair". No, I guess he's not socialist at all.

Melissa

[kokotg]

I have to say we don't make $250,000 (or anywhere near it), but I've counted 6 different ways Obama will raise my taxes without "raising" our federal income tax. Are you saying your family will not be affected with his gas tax hike? Just curious. I know some will say maybe we should take the bus, but buses around here have cut back their running because the communities can't afford the gas right now. He's very much into using taxes to be fair, not to make money for the government. Just go to youtube and rewatch his response to raising the Capital gains tax. By raising it he will lower the amount of money the US will earn on capital gains and hurt those of use who have capital gains, but of course he's still planning on raising it to be "fair". No, I guess he's not socialist at all.

Melissa

 

ABC News' Teddy Davis, Arnab Datta, and Rigel Anderson Report: Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., top economic advisors announced on Thursday that he is seeking to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for those Americans making more than $250,000 per year.

 

“The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986,†wrote Obama advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-clarifies.html

 

Was Reagan a socialist?

[Amy in NH]

 

How much extra money have you voluntarily contributed to the government over the last years? I'll almost wager a bet that you give more to private foundations.

 

Aggie

 

We are on the poor end of the spectrum. We live week to week, paycheck to paycheck. If we donated to any private foundation, we'd certainly not have money for groceries. But we've contributed plenty to the government. ;)

[qfbrenda]

The rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes. I'm talking about income taxes, which I realize is only one of the many taxes we pay. According to the numbers I just looked up, in the year 2000 the top 25% of tax payers paid 83.6% of the income taxes. In 2005, they were paying 85.6% of the income taxes. Also in 2005, only 67.4% of income tax filers actually paid any income tax. That means the bottom 1/3 of tax filers didn't pay any income taxes. It's hard to cut taxes for people already not paying them. ;) Only 1% of the filers pay 35% income tax.

 

From the article I found:

The most common tax rate is 15 percent, which is paid by 54.4 million taxpayers. This means the typical taxpayer pays at less than half the tax rate of the top earners.

The second most common tax rate is 10 percent. About 25.5 million taxpayers pay at that rate. This group pays taxes at one-third the rate paid by the highest-income taxpayers. So of the two-thirds of all households that pay anything in income taxes, about three-quarters pay at 15 percent or less.

 

Among the remaining 25 percent of taxpayers:

• 22 million households pay income taxes at marginal rates of 25 percent.

• 3.7 million pay at 28 percent.

• 1.5 million pay at 33 percent.

 

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sburns/stories/DN-burns_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.4603045.html

 

 

My issue with the Obama tax cuts as he calls them is that his numbers just don't work out. He can't add billions of extra spending to the budget and cut taxes at the same time. Also, he wants to tax business more right when the economy is hurting. That will slow business down even more. And business will pass on the extra taxes onto the consumers through price increases. So while people might not be paying extra taxes per se, they will be paying more for the products they buy.

[Elaine]

You know it sounds very compassionate to "help" our fellow neighbor. However, that is "socialism". So, no way.......

 

Took the words right out of my mouth! :001_smile:

[kokotg]

I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that Congress would make themselves subject to any tax increases. There will be loopholes for them, but not for businesses that we average people deal with daily.

 

You've said this before, and it doesn't make sense to me. People vote to give themselves tax increases all the time. Are you saying that no one making more than $250,000 a year is voting for Obama unless they're planning to cheat on their taxes? My "average people" in-laws are stalwart Democrats and are safely in that range. People vote on a lot of things aside from economic self interest--Republicans and Democrats.

[mom31257]

Looks like we are well on our way to becoming a nation full of "Why try harder?"

 

Gee, work hard and get what you want, or don't work and get what you want. I wonder which one many Americans will choose?

 

I totally agree with you! I think it's been proven that government handouts are not a hand-up. There are generations of families on welfare. We live in a county that has the most government assisted housing in our state. We also have the highest teen pregnancy rate, and one of the highest drop out rates in the state as well. My dh teaches at the high school here. He teaches all regular classes (no AP or Honors). Most are on free or reduced lunches. So many of his students do seem to have an attitude that the world "owes" them something, along with poor work ethics. What was amazing to us after he went there was that so many on the free and reduced lunches had such nice Ipods, phones, shoes, and clothes. He didn't even have a phone himself until I got him a pre-paid phone last Christmas.

 

I think if you deal with all sides of poverty, you begin to see that there are many reasons for it to exist. Some are just people who have fallen on hard times. Some are poor because of their own choices and laziness. I believe we should help those in need, but not those just looking for a hand-out.

[Debbie in OR]

Or maybe they truly are "wealthy" and are also greedy and don't want to share the wealth with the community in which they are supported in that wealth.

 

I do think that we would all be better off if we weren't so darned greedy and egocentric.

 

I don't care what it's called; helping one's neighbor is the compassionate and *right* thing to do. That's called being a community. It is the moral and ethical thing to do. I always find it ironic that the Christians are the ones with the least Christian attitude toward their fellow man. (I'm not talking all of you, but you know who you are.) So many people cite the Bible and religious doctrine, unless it doesn't fit into the ideology they are spouting.

 

 

I struggle with this constant attempt to connect not wanting to pay more taxes or fund government programs ("spread the wealth") with being greedy and egocentric.

 

There will always be those who choose not to use their money to help others (Christians and secular). And while I think that is unfortunate, it is not our right to demand how a private citizen uses his or her own earned money.

 

But there are many, many others (my family included) who use much of their discretionary income to support organizations that help and take care of others, both locally (as local as the family down the street with a single dad trying to take care of two young girls) and abroad. Not that I really care to broadcast this, but for most of us, it has nothing to do with an unwillingness to help others: it just should not be something the government has control over.

[Haiku]

 

Was Reagan a socialist?

 

I'm still trying to figure out how giving me a $1,042 tax cut (Obama) is more socialist than giving me a $392 tax cut (McCain). (It is, after all, as the Republicans love to scream, my money.) Especially when socialism is "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." (Oh, and go here to see how egalitarianism is not the same as "everyone has the same amount of money.")

 

I don't think anyone is proposing state ownership of business ... except for Bush, who is right now working to help the government buy stock in banks. :confused:

 

Tara

[kokotg]

You've said this before, and it doesn't make sense to me. People vote to give themselves tax increases all the time. Are you saying that no one making more than $250,000 a year is voting for Obama unless they're planning to cheat on their taxes? My "average people" in-laws are stalwart Democrats and are safely in that range. People vote on a lot of things aside from economic self interest--Republicans and Democrats.

 

Or maybe you're saying that people in Congress always vote in their economic self interest, because they're a special breed? :tongue_smilie:

[Elaine]

I totally agree with you! I think it's been proven that government handouts are not a hand-up. There are generations of families on welfare. We live in a county that has the most government assisted housing in our state. We also have the highest teen pregnancy rate, and one of the highest drop out rates in the state as well. My dh teaches at the high school here. He teaches all regular classes (no AP or Honors). Most are on free or reduced lunches. So many of his students do seem to have an attitude that the world "owes" them something, along with poor work ethics. What was amazing to us after he went there was that so many on the free and reduced lunches had such nice Ipods, phones, shoes, and clothes. He didn't even have a phone himself until I got him a pre-paid phone last Christmas.

 

I think if you deal with all sides of poverty, you begin to see that there are many reasons for it to exist. Some are just people who have fallen on hard times. Some are poor because of their own choices and laziness. I believe we should help those in need, but not those just looking for a hand-out.

 

Oh, I sooo agree with you!

 

I don't even know how to say what I want to say without getting quoted and taken to task for it but...yeah. No more handouts.

 

And I say this as a person whose husband was without a steady job for over 11 months. Savings gone. No insurance. Selling furniture and jewelry to buy food. Tough times abound, you find a way to make it work.

[Aggie]

You've said this before, and it doesn't make sense to me. People vote to give themselves tax increases all the time. Are you saying that no one making more than $250,000 a year is voting for Obama unless they're planning to cheat on their taxes? My "average people" in-laws are stalwart Democrats and are safely in that range. People vote on a lot of things aside from economic self interest--Republicans and Democrats.

 

I don't believe they'll cheat on their taxes.

 

What I am saying is that our Congress is composed of mostly *very* wealthy individuals. History shows that they are not going to make new laws that would not have loopholes for their income.

 

If either party was going to do that, they've each had many opportunities to do so.

 

Congressmen and women care deeply about money and accumulating wealth. (Not that they are the only ones, but they are the ones making law) Have they ever even considered changing their very generous retirement policy? Who among us has retirement benefits even close to theirs?

 

I guess I just don't trust them to make too many decisions involving my money. While they stay ultra-rich. Show me a candidate who wants to helps the poor as he gives all but a million of his own dollars to the government and I'll vote for him/her. IMO, they cannot sit on 10 million of their own dollars and talk about redistributing wealth to help the poor.

[Melissa in FL]

I totally agree with you! I think it's been proven that government handouts are not a hand-up. There are generations of families on welfare. We live in a county that has the most government assisted housing in our state. We also have the highest teen pregnancy rate, and one of the highest drop out rates in the state as well. My dh teaches at the high school here. He teaches all regular classes (no AP or Honors). Most are on free or reduced lunches. So many of his students do seem to have an attitude that the world "owes" them something, along with poor work ethics. What was amazing to us after he went there was that so many on the free and reduced lunches had such nice Ipods, phones, shoes, and clothes. He didn't even have a phone himself until I got him a pre-paid phone last Christmas.

 

I think if you deal with all sides of poverty, you begin to see that there are many reasons for it to exist. Some are just people who have fallen on hard times. Some are poor because of their own choices and laziness. I believe we should help those in need, but not those just looking for a hand-out.

 

Well said!! :iagree: You said it so well, this is my experience also. Dh would not have survived as a child without assistance, but I've also see TERRIBLE abuse of it. There is definitely some who need a hand-up and some who are looking for a permanent handout. Then I've seen those who need the help who just don't "qualify" in the eyes of the government. I don't have a solution, but socialism is not the answer.

Melissa

[Debbie in OR]

Tough times abound, you find a way to make it work.

 

:iagree: Yep...it's just what ya do. Not fun, can be messy and tiring. But relying on government handouts only perpetuates the problem.

[Elaine]

I struggle with this constant attempt to connect not wanting to pay more taxes or fund government programs ("spread the wealth") with being greedy and egocentric.

 

There will always be those who choose not to use their money to help others (Christians and secular). And while I think that is unfortunate, it is not our right to demand how a private citizen uses his or her own earned money.

 

But there are many, many others (my family included) who use much of their discretionary income to support organizations that help and take care of others, both locally (as local as the family down the street with a single dad trying to take care of two young girls) and abroad. Not that I really care to broadcast this, but for most of us, it has nothing to do with an unwillingness to help others: it just should not be something the government has control over.

 

 

Well don't feel too badly, Debbie. Obama didn't begin donating substantially to charity until he was running for President.

[mom31257]

Oh, I sooo agree with you!

 

I don't even know how to say what I want to say without getting quoted and taken to task for it but...yeah. No more handouts.

 

And I say this as a person whose husband was without a steady job for over 11 months. Savings gone. No insurance. Selling furniture and jewelry to buy food. Tough times abound, you find a way to make it work.

 

I think you are the perfect example of people that should get help from the government. My sister has been trying to get disability for 3.5 years and still hasn't been able to do so. She was assistant vp of a mortgage company and sold PartyLite practically full time when she had nerve damage happen in a surgery. She would be at work tomorrow if she could. She's 47 and almost an invalid at times. I guess they won't give it to her because it was a "desk job", but how do they expect her to make decisions with hundreds of thousands of dollars with days of not sleeping from the pain? How do they expect her to drive to any job under circumstances like that? Sorry for the rant!

[Laura K (NC)]

My dh lost his job when I was pregnant with my first one. We both worked, but the jobs were low-paying. We didn't have enough for groceries. We didn't go on welfare. My husband kept looking for a better job, and we moved to wear the jobs are and we figured out how to make a better life for ourselves without handouts of any kind.

 

We are human beings, the smartest animal on the planet. We adapt, or we die... and supposedly we are better at adapting than any other animal on the planet. I think it's insulting for politicians to assume that we are dumber than animals, that we are like babes-in-the-woods, helpless and mewling.

 

Coddle and suckle grown men and women. I've seen it happen: they virtually become helpless as infants. During our poorest days I worked as a nurse's aide in a retirement home. We were told to encourage the residents to do their own activities of daily living, because if they didn't and became too dependent on us, they would cease to function for themselves. That's the whole point of occupational therapy -- to encourage independence. If the medical society can see this, I don't know why the society at large can't.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Laura K (NC)

[Debbie in OR]

Obama didn't begin donating substantially to charity until he was running for President.

 

:lol:Hmmm.....

[Elaine]

I think you are the perfect example of people that should get help from the government. My sister has been trying to get disability for 3.5 years and still hasn't been able to do so. She was assistant vp of a mortgage company and sold PartyLite practically full time when she had nerve damage happen in a surgery. She would be at work tomorrow if she could. She's 47 and almost an invalid at times. I guess they won't give it to her because it was a "desk job", but how do they expect her to make decisions with hundreds of thousands of dollars with days of not sleeping from the pain? How do they expect her to drive to any job under circumstances like that? Sorry for the rant!

 

I'm sorry for your sister, what an incredibly frustrating way to live!

 

 

And, we now have steady income for which we are truly thankful.:001_smile:

[VaKim]

I think that is a common misconception until really investigated. No doubt, Jefferson owned slaves. Franklin and Rush began the first abolitionist society in the 1770's. The overwhelming majority of the signers of the Declaration did not own slaves. We only learn about Jefferson and his slave ownership in school. Here is a link to an article citing a plethora of original quotes and sources as well as a good indepth history of the relationship of the Founders to slavery:

http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120

Of course Washington had slaves that he inherited at age 11. Sounds like most of the Founders who did have slaves let them go upon Independence. Also, the Declaration itself addresses the issue of slavery in its grievances against King George III who wanted the colonies to continue slavery.

Hope you or anyone else finds this helpful.

Soph

This is all true. But for whoever thinks that we have it better now, just because we no longer have that form of slavery, think again. We may have been stopped from owning each other after the civil war, but it was the beginning of the government owning all of us. We are already all slaves, and it is only getting worse. But most people won't care, because as long as they have "money" and "comforts," they do not care about freedom. I would rather be starving and free, than well fed and a slave. Just as I'm sure many of those Africans felt "way back then."

[Michelle in MO]

People are tithing to the church, so it can pay it's light bill. A LOT of money that SHOULD be used to help the poor is being used to run another institution. A lot of people hand over their money and don't know where it's really going. This whole thing is not black and white. There is a lot of gray here and we are all to blame. Our society is a mess.

 

I thought Bev's post said that they gave to a private charity. Most people check out the charities that they give to, in order to make certain that that organization is using funds wisely in order to help people most efficiently. I'm saying this gently, but I think your post is making a presumption here.

 

Even if someone is giving to a church, many churches are still very efficient charitable organizations. Not all churches are about building huge buildings and giving ministers gigantic salaries. After disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the great tidal wave that hit Thailand and the Indian Ocean after Christmas a few years ago, thousands of churches started collections immediately to contribute to those affected by the disaster. The Catholic church in our town has a food pantry that they keep regularly stocked with food for the poor. My girls are going to a Catholic school, and they also have food drives where each class will bring in a certain type of food item.

 

Not all, but many charities, both Christian and secular, are still good, sound charitable organizations.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Michelle in MO

[Soph the vet]

However, Amy, some of us would rather the 'community' not have the government involved. We (dh and I) are generous, but we choose our charities *very* carefully. When our hard-earned money is doled out, there is some accountability. Not so with the government.

 

And, until I see Obama and other senators giving extra money voluntarily to government programs, I've not much use for those programs. Or those who want to increase them.

 

I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that Congress would make themselves subject to any tax increases. There will be loopholes for them, but not for businesses that we average people deal with daily. And, as a business owner on this board stated, the businesses will just pass the savings on to us.

 

How much extra money have you voluntarily contributed to the government over the last years? I'll almost wager a bet that you give more to private foundations.

 

Aggie

:iagree:I would rep you if I could on this!

[Soph the vet]

This is all true. But for whoever thinks that we have it better now, just because we no longer have that form of slavery, think again. We may have been stopped from owning each other after the civil war, but it was the beginning of the government owning all of us. We are already all slaves, and it is only getting worse. But most people won't care, because as long as they have "money" and "comforts," they do not care about freedom. I would rather be starving and free, than well fed and a slave. Just as I'm sure many of those Africans felt "way back then."

I am totally with you on this, VaKim (Kim?). We need more Patrick Henrys right now. "Give me liberty, or give me death" types. I don't want to be owned by the government. We are supposed to own the government. Government is supposed to be limited. I don't want to be "taken care of". My dependence is on God not government.

[LisaNY]

Looks like we are well on our way to becoming a nation full of "Why try harder?"

 

Gee, work hard and get what you want, or don't work and get what you want. I wonder which one many Americans will choose?

 

oooh!!-oooh!! I know! I know!

 

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. :sneaky2:

 

I managed a temporary personnel agency for two years. I saw time and time again that people really did not want to work. So many of them would rather collect their unemployment or welfare checks instead of actually getting off their b*tts and going to work. Most just came to me so that they could go on record as having *tried* to get a job. I would get them a job, only to have them not show up on Monday. It was so frustrating. I had to quit the job, because I just could not take the stress anymore.

 

We got our hay from a local farmer upstate. He told us that he wouldn't know what to do if Mexican workers were not available. Years ago, he used to have tons of high school students who would come to him for summer jobs. Not so any more.

 

It used to be that welfare was there to help those truly, truly in need, but even then, it was supposed to be a *temporary* means of helping people through a rough time until they could get back on their feet. Not so anymore. Now, it's becoming a way of life for waaaaay too many people.

 

Star Parker, a woman who used to be on welfare, has made it her life's work to change the way the world thinks in this regard.

 

Urban Cure is her website. Click on "About Cure" to learn about where she stands on the issue of welfare.

Edited October 14, 2008 by LisaNY

[Haiku]

Now, it's becoming a way of life for waaaaay too many people.

 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we pass a law in 1996 that limited welfare to two consecutive years and a lifetime cap of five years?

 

Tara

[TXMomof4]

I think some people are SO stuck on Obama's race (even if they don't want to admit it), or his party affiliation, or his lack of trying to legislate religion on people, that they'll twist every other policy into something they disagree with instead of taking it at face value. They've already made a judgment and aren't willing to consider that he has some good ideas that might benefit people. Or maybe they truly are "wealthy" and are also greedy and don't want to share the wealth with the community in which they are supported in that wealth.

 

Do a little googling about the concentration of wealth in this country. The middle class is getting squeezed out. I don't think a little spreading of the wealth would be a horrible thing. But I think it's silly to call it socialism.

 

If "building up from the bottom up" is socialism, then what is it when the government gives money to rich people? I do think that we would all be better off if we weren't so darned greedy and egocentric. I can't begin to imagine that families making $250,000/year would consider themselves middle class, nor be really hurt by paying their fair share of taxes.

 

Live simply that others may simply live. And all that.

 

I don't care what it's called; helping one's neighbor is the compassionate and *right* thing to do. That's called being a community. It is the moral and ethical thing to do. I always find it ironic that the Christians are the ones with the least Christian attitude toward their fellow man. (I'm not talking all of you, but you know who you are.) So many people cite the Bible and religious doctrine, unless it doesn't fit into the ideology they are spouting. Thanks for this, phathui5

 

phathui5 wrote:

'The Jubilee legislation had as an underlying principal that other people and not self-possessions are important. Man, created in God’s image (Gen 1:26) is to be safeguarded, cared for and looked after. '

 

 

Helping my neighbor is called community. When it is my decision to do it. When the government helps my neighbor with my money - that is socialism.

 

Also, I am sick beyond all measure of people accusing anyone who doesn't like the platform that Obama is espousing of being racist. While I am SURE that feeling exists here, it exists on both sides. I can't tell you how many good ol' boy farmers (who are also staunchly democrat) will not vote for a black man. Yes, that horrifies me. I hate to think of that in my country (luckily not in my immediate neighborhood). But for the assumption to be that I only disagree with him because of his race is insulting.

[Renee in NC]

the sense of entitlement propogated on this particular thread. I've stated before that both my husband and I came from poor backgrounds. We both made smart decisions about our lives' date=' went to college (with no help from parents), and consider ourselves successful. My father dropped out of school in the 7th grade to support his family (he was 1 of 12 children). I never once heard him say the government "owed" him anything, even after he fought in WWII.

 

I've never mentioned what my husband does for a living, but I think it's pertinent here. He's a consultant; he uses both his engineering background (his bachelor's degree) and his MBA to help companies. Specifically companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. He goes in and helps them retool, reorganize, and reorder their organization to make it work so they won't have to lay off at all or as many people or go bankrupt. He doesn't work with small companies; he takes on the big companies with 100's of thousands of workers. The point is, my dh works really hard at his job. All nighters are not uncommon as he is always working towards a deadline, usually the organization's finances dictate the deadline. He's pulling one tonight as a matter of fact after getting up at 5:00 this morning to fly out.

 

What incentive would he possibly have to work this hard if the money he earns from his hard work is taken, basically at the point of a gun (which government will do when it sends the police to your house for not paying taxes)? None, he might as well get a 40 hour a week job so he can come home at night to his family (maybe he should start practicing "Would you like fries with that?"). Then he could earn the same amount as everyone else. And what happens to those who work for my husband? And what happens to the organizations he doesn't help?

 

The supposition of this thread is that everybody is intrinsically motivated. That is, people will work hard for the self-satisfaction of doing a job well. While most people do take satisfaction in their jobs, extrinisic motivation is usually the driving factor. Whether it be fame or fortune, most people enjoy the fruits of their labor. And, no, I'm not talking about the greedy men on Wall Street who partially precipitated the current economic crisis. I'm talking about the average Joe, like my husband. My dh likes his job and gets a lot of satisfaction out of it, but he won't do it if it means that he's going to be earning the same as everyone else. With hard work comes rewards. Even my 15 yo dd who's taking AP Econ this year seems to understand the basics behind our economy well enough to know that this "spreading the wealth" is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Whatever happened to working hard to better yourself and your family? Where did this sense of entitlement come from? I imagine in my mind the police standing at our door demanding money with all those people who think they are "owed" standing behind them with their hands out. Where does it stop? Should we all drive the same style car? Live in the same style house? Have exactly the same number of children? When you let government take control of a part of your lives, they own you. If they, for example, have control over your healthcare, they can tell you to vaccinate your children (even if you don't want to), they can tell you an operation is not essential, they can start making quality of life decisions for YOU!

 

Without the intention of bragging here, we give a substantial part of our money to private charity already. That's where charity belongs, in the private sector, not having government take it away by force and given to people who make choices in their lives that do not have the desired outcomes.[/quote']

 

Why is it assumed that those who are poorer just aren't working as hard? I see that all the time - "my dh works so hard and he deserves xyz." My dh works hard, too - he works 10.5 hours a day M-F and another 8 hours on Saturday at the LEAST. I work in the business 30 hours a week and I have just taken another 20 hour a week job. Why? So that we can keep our doors open and keep employees employed. We work that hard and at this point we are not seeing any extrinsic benefits!

 

I don't think anyone owes us anything. But to say that we are "poor" because we don't work as hard (or that you are wealthy simply because you work harder/made better decisions/etc.) is not right either. I don't think anyone is saying "give me money" they are asking for a little help up. How much of your tax money do you really think is going to help individuals? Not much as a percentage of the national budget.

[mom31257]

I'm not sure about the 5 year law, but a lot of times they are actually receiving money for their children is my understanding. I used to work in higher risk lending before having my children. I actually took a credit application one time on a lady with $3k a month income, ALL from the government. I think she had 6 children, but it may have been more. It was all I could do to not scream at my desk!!

 

I think that seeing those who don't need help getting it, and those who need help not getting it has convinced me that the government should do as little as possible in running anything. I don't trust it to do anything very well anymore.

 

I think the true problem lies in the heart of people. If a person is honest, hard working, and has integrity, they won't ask for help unless they really need it. We can't mandate people to become ethical. That has to come from within. All I can do is pray for people, help when I can, and try to live my life as honest and hard working as I can.

 

I have wondered if people stopped giving and helping those in need as much when the government started doing more for the poor. Did we take the attitude of "the government is all ready taking my tax dollars to help the poor, so I don't have to anymore"? I haven't researched the start of welfare very much, but did neighbors and churches help people more before it began?

 

I can't speak for all churches, but ours does a lot to help. We have a food bank that anyone can come to, there are no requirements to be met. We sponsor a school here that has 97% of the kids at or below the poverty level. We buy school supplies. We're donating coats to all the kids. We do shoe box Christmas gifts to the entire student body. We send out construction teams to places after hurricanes and storms. We help many in financial need. If we all, churches and non-church goers, did things like this, maybe the government wouldn't have to do as much.

 

My mind is filled with thoughts on all this today.

[kokotg]

I remain perplexed by how many people insist on redefining socialism so that virtually the entire modern world is socialist and the US has been so for upwards of a century.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I managed a temporary personnel agency for two years. I saw time and time again that people really did not want to work. So many of them would rather collect their unemployment or welfare checks instead of actually getting off their b*tts and going to work. Most just came to me so that they could go on record as having *tried* to get a job. I would get them a job, only to have them not show up on Monday. It was so frustrating. I had to quit the job, because I just could not take the stress anymore.

 

I used to run a staffing business. I had men who got laid off from good jobs that would work on the back of garbage trucks for a day just to earn some money. There was an immigrant worker who walked to his construction job every single day- rain or shine. He now has a better job with benefits at the hospital and has bought a house. I remember one young man who I literally had to go to his house to make sure he got up out of bed to go to work for a month.

 

I had quite a few people who would no-show and had poor work ethic, of course. Most of those were for white collar jobs, though. I also worked a lot with the poor. I wonder if you ever took an hour to talk to someone and find out what was going on in their lives? Some of the people I worked with dropped out of school in the 9th grade. We were living in a town where there was no public transportation and these people couldn't afford cars. Many of them felt like society had given up on them and were tired of trying. Some just didn't know how to pull themselves out of the lifestyle that was all they had ever known.

 

I knew people like you when I was in the business. Most of them quit or I fired them for making comments like the one above. They were more interested in complaining about people "not doing the right thing" instead of trying to help people learn to do the right thing and better themselves. I saw my business as a way to improve my tiny part of the world. I was basically making money off exploiting these people- the least I could do was try to help the ones I could.

 

I turned down contracts from clients who would only pay minimum wage. There were times I lowered my profit percentage so that certain employees could have a little more to take home that week. I went to every job site and inspected the working conditions, and I showed up with KFC or pizza for my employees at lunch sometimes.

 

My dad was one of the best managers of all time. He taught me that to manage means to lift people up. A good manager has to be willing to show up at that job site at 3AM when there is a problem, or drive someone to that brand new client so he's not left with a no-show. A good manager always has his office door open and will make time to talk to an employee when needed.

 

Then there is the responsibility I have because I grew up with white, heterosexual parents who were born in this country and had $$$. I am thankful that my parents taught me how to do my best to put myself in the shoes of those who might not have the same advantages. I didn't have the kind of parents who talked about "THOSE people on the bad side of town". We invited those people into our home. Children whose parents were recipients of welfare went to amusement parks with me as a kid, came to swim in my pool, and spend the night at my home. I wonder how many people reading this message have poor and/or minority children over to play with their children? To spend the night at their home?

 

Or do they just b**** about welfare recipients and immigrants without trying to find out anything about their lives? Do they just try to point fingers at what's wrong with other people's lives because they feel so miserable about their own?

 

ETA: It scares me that people who are entrusted with the education of their children think it is a matter of simply "working harder and getting what you want". I hope at some point you send these children to public school at least for a little while so they at least have half a chance to learn that is not the case. Sorry, but this is just plain ignorance and yes I will say it- stupidity.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Academy of Jedi Arts

[TXMomof4]

And one more thing!

 

People act like all of the new money in taxes will go to help poor individuals with healthcare, food, job training, etc. Reality is that more useless government programs will get more funding. That's just the way it works. I have no say in how the gov. uses the money they take from me and my family.

Someone stated churches pay the light bill with tithe money. That is true to a point, all organizations have bills to pay. BUT I have the option of noting on my tithe that I want it to be used for a specific purpose. And I use that option regularly. The government has no such option. My money is used to pay for things like NPR, the NEA, museums, wooden arrows, etc. If we have people starving in this country, shouldn't they be accountable to me AND to those people about how they spend my money? Shouldn't the bulk of the money actually be used for those people instead of administrators? Shouldn't we be worried about food and healthcare first instead of whether everyone in the US is able to buy a home? Taking money to pay for pork is not acceptable, and that is exactly what happens every day in this country.

[kokotg]

Incidentally, take a look at the news about what the Bush administration is doing today if you want to see the government doing something that's actually socialist. Nationalizing the banks=socialist. Progressive tax structure=not.

[Renee in NC]

I'm not sure about the 5 year law, but a lot of times they are actually receiving money for their children is my understanding. I used to work in higher risk lending before having my children. I actually took a credit application one time on a lady with $3k a month income, ALL from the government. I think she had 6 children, but it may have been more. It was all I could do to not scream at my desk!!

 

I think that seeing those who don't need help getting it, and those who need help not getting it has convinced me that the government should do as little as possible in running anything. I don't trust it to do anything very well anymore.

 

I think the true problem lies in the heart of people. If a person is honest, hard working, and has integrity, they won't ask for help unless they really need it. We can't mandate people to become ethical. That has to come from within. All I can do is pray for people, help when I can, and try to live my life as honest and hard working as I can.

 

 

 

 

What I see is that even people who really, really need help and are doing things to change their lives are still considered losers for needing help. Wanna know why I would go to the gov't before I would go to some of the local churches/charities? Because of the terrible judgement and gossip that goes along with it!

 

In NC, the max my family could receive from welfare cash payments is $386. A far cry from $3000. It may be that she had special needs children, foster children, or some other special cirucmstance that gave her more, but 99% of recipients aren't getting anywhere near that! My state PAYS people to adopt special needs foster children in order to keep them out of institutions.

[Soph the vet]

I remain perplexed by how many people insist on redefining socialism so that virtually the entire modern world is socialist and the US has been so for upwards of a century.

I think you're on to something here.;)

[Bev in B'ville]

How much of your tax money do you really think is going to help individuals? Not much as a percentage of the national budget.

 

Exactly why charity should be kept private. The government has not been accountable to us about how the money they take from us is spent. Lots of pork barrel stuff. I contribute to an organization where $.85 of every $1 is spent on the people who actually need it; the other $.15 is administrative cost. That's a great percentage, actually. I dare say the government does not do that. Additionally, I get a rundown on exactly how the money is spent, every cent. Government has never sent me anything telling me down to the cent how my money is spent.

 

And, yes, it is all about choices in life. Choices of whether to go to college, where to go to college, how to pay for college (there are many choices), chosen major (knowing ahead of time, if money is important to you, how much people in that field of work make), how to spend the money made, where to invest and how much, what a potential husband/wife brings to the partnership (other than undying love), when/if to have children, how many children to have. I could go on and on. The bottom line is that usually one choice leads to another. People who make bad choices usually compound that decision with more bad choices. I hold my children accountable everyday for the choices they make; I expect no less from my government.

 

*Just a side note about colleges. We were at Georgia Tech last week and they have something called the "Tech Promise." Bottom line: any family whose child gets into Tech that makes less than a predetermined amount of income will graduate debt free. As I stated above, there are many ways to fund education for those willing to work for it. Of course, getting into Tech is not easy, it entails lots of hard work on the student's part, AP classes, high test scores, etc. but that's another choice, isn't it, whether to work that hard?

[Laura K (NC)]

Her job was to find jobs for those who would take them. According to you, she is out of line by saying that some folks don't actually (*gasp*) want to work.

 

And this is such a horrible crime, to say what is white, is white, and what is black, is black?

 

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

– Part II, chapter IX - chapter I of Goldstein's book

[emeraldjoy]

Yep. We did. TEMPORARY Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

 

And, by the way, all of these "Entitlement" programs that everyone seems to get so upset about take up less than 10% of our tax dollars; ALL of them combined; foodstamps, etc......

Care to look at the budget for defense?

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we pass a law in 1996 that limited welfare to two consecutive years and a lifetime cap of five years?

 

Tara