Tonight was the second night in a row of trick or treating. Soooooo, I thought this would be a good time to teach my 6, 5, and 2 year old about politics. Basically, I told them the difference between Dems and Pubs is the amount of candy you get to keep at the end of the night. Fun times.

For the Dem's side of the equation, I pointed to all the candy they got and then let them keep a small fraction while I, as big daddy gov't., took the rest to give it to the rest of the kids on the street who were disadvantaged since it wasn't fair that the German kids aren't invited to the Americans' Halloween festivities on base. For the Pubs, of course, it was the opposite argument.

When I asked which party was better, my 6 year old said Pubs. She likes candy. My five year old said Dems. Funny. I went through the lesson two more times before the light bulb went off in his head. I told him he "cared" more about people than everyone else in the room.

Next I had to explain that our family is somewhat unique in that we're publically funded since I work for the gov't. That's irony at its best.

You bring up an interesting point, and a potential point of hypocrisy. First most teach their kids that it is good to be charitable, and to share. Then many turn around and teach the kids from a political perspective, how bad sharing is and we should avoid the liberal fools who take our stuff away - sharing will lead to the death of us all.

How fortunate it must for a kid to get politically brainwashed when they are only 5 or 6 years old.

I think religious fanatics,homophobes and racists do the same thing when their kids are that young.It takes a pretty smart kid to overcome it.

Teaching kids to share their candy is one thing,teaching them political dogma at a young age is something else.We don't need more little Limbots or Olbermaniacs.Let them be kids for a while.They'll have plenty of time to figure out politics when they get older.

It's not so bad to share the candy with the German kids. The problem comes when they expect it every year and want more and more.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
You bring up an interesting point, and a potential point of hypocrisy. First most teach their kids that it is good to be charitable, and to share. Then many turn around and teach the kids from a political perspective, how bad sharing is and we should avoid the liberal fools who take our stuff away - sharing will lead to the death of us all.

Agreed, we should teach to share and to count our blessings.

However, it still comes down to some telling others what they can believe and enforce that belief with the force of law. I do not think anybody is that smart.

I would much rather our democrap leaders lead vs. rule. This also goes with the repugs.

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
You bring up an interesting point, and a potential point of hypocrisy. First most teach their kids that it is good to be charitable, and to share. Then many turn around and teach the kids from a political perspective, how bad sharing is and we should avoid the liberal fools who take our stuff away - sharing will lead to the death of us all.

Agreed, we should teach to share and to count our blessings.

However, it still comes down to some telling others what they can believe and enforce that belief with the force of law. I do not think anybody is that smart.

I would much rather our democrap leaders lead vs. rule. This also goes with the repugs.

I am sure Ramstein's game was somewhat tongue in cheek, but what I find distasteful is the message. It is one thing to teach kids that if you work, you get money - so there is gratification, but at least your rewarding work. In his game the moral of the story is it is better to keep it for yourself, vs give it away. Immediate self gratification, at the expense of others. From an individual standpoint, that is true, but it doesn't make more much of a society. Evidence the current political environment, in spite of trillion dollar deficits, most people want either tax cuts or more spending, or both. Immediate gratification at the expense of others always wins.

Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

I've never had a gun pointed at me in the U.S.

BTW, I'm planning on volunteering in Africa on my next vacation so I went to your daughter's website. Unfortunately, the born-again Christian requirement makes me ineligible. requirement

quote:

Originally posted by brianatwood:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

I've never had a gun pointed at me in the U.S.

BTW, I'm planning on volunteering in Africa on my next vacation so I went to your daughter's website. Unfortunately, the born-again Christian requirement makes me ineligible. requirement

Neither you nor I have had a gun pointed at us because we have obeyed the law and turned over our money. But you can't deny that we do it, at least in part, because the government under the law can incarcerate us if we don't...that is the gun pointed at us.

I applaud your decision to volunteer in Africa. While Our Own Home accepts any needy child, regardless of background or faith, it is a Christian ministry so there is a faith requirement for the volunteers. There are plenty of organizations doing great work that don't have that requirement...I'll ask Holly if she knows of any in her region. Be sure to get all your shots and begin taking the malaria preventive several weeks before you go.

quote:

Originally posted by brianatwood:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

I've never had a gun pointed at me in the U.S.

BTW, I'm planning on volunteering in Africa on my next vacation so I went to your daughter's website. Unfortunately, the born-again Christian requirement makes me ineligible. requirement

Don't do what the federal gov't tells you to do and see what happens.

You dingbats a perverse knowledge of Civics. Govt. is "us." It was and will be never be "them." If we gave up on our Govt., we are the ones to blame. We get what we deserve. Darn, that was painful (wise words of a fellow poster here).

quote:

Originally posted by MotownGator:
You dingbats a perverse knowledge of Civics. Govt. is "us." It was and will be never be "them." If we gave up on our Govt., we are the ones to blame. We get what we deserve. Darn, that was painful (wise words of a fellow poster here).

We're "We The People" on July 4th and other feel good patriotic holidays and partisan "me firsters" all the rest of the time.

My opion is that we old farts have been placed under Government programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Rx Plans) and so on. It is like getting a Christmas present that you do not deseve and them ***** about it because it is not large enough or good enough by your standard.

I think almost every program the Local, State, or Federal governments have cause that same reaction by the end recievers.

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. Wyogator hit it on the head. One of the concepts that I've noticed so many Americans missing as I see it reported in the media is that paying taxes DOES NOT equal charity. If the government is taking money from one person and giving it to someone else, that's redistribution of income. You can't deduct your taxes from your taxes. You can deduct charitable contributions from your taxes.

Tax definitions and discussions aside, the opportunity to exhibit charity occurs when you keep what you've earned and then exercise your own free will and choice to give that away. This will be tomorrow night's lesson. Please, please, please don't confuse the two because they are not equal. You're really fooling yourself if you look at yourself in the mirror and actually believe that you're giving 50% of your gross income to charity when it's really being sucked off of you through taxes.

For those of you who don't mind funding the plethora of gov't. programs that exist today at multiple levels of gov't, that's your choice. I suggest trying a different tactic: after you pay your taxes, take a double digit percentage of your GROSS income and offer that to charity. Doing that, I promise, will certainly bring a smile to your face.

Happy Halloween!

quote:

Originally posted by ramsteingatorchamps:
Thanks for the discussion, everyone. Wyogator hit it on the head. One of the concepts that I've noticed so many Americans missing as I see it reported in the media is that paying taxes DOES NOT equal charity. If the government is taking money from one person and giving it to someone else, that's redistribution of income. You can't deduct your taxes from your taxes. You can deduct charitable contributions from your taxes.

Tax definitions and discussions aside, the opportunity to exhibit charity occurs when you keep what you've earned and then exercise your own free will and choice to give that away. This will be tomorrow night's lesson. Please, please, please don't confuse the two because they are not equal. You're really fooling yourself if you look at yourself in the mirror and actually believe that you're giving 50% of your gross income to charity when it's really being sucked off of you through taxes.

For those of you who don't mind funding the plethora of gov't. programs that exist today at multiple levels of gov't, that's your choice. I suggest trying a different tactic: after you pay your taxes, take a double digit percentage of your GROSS income and offer that to charity. Doing that, I promise, will certainly bring a smile to your face.

Happy Halloween!

So I take it with your Pub and Dem lesson to the kids you told them they should hate paying taxes if it provides medical care or jobs for Americans, but taxes to rebuild the country of people who hate us and didn't need their country rebuilt before we destroyed it and incited crazy terrorists to start blowing up the people of that country as well as our own soldiers is just fine and dandy.

quote:

Originally posted by OPGator:

quote:

Originally posted by ramsteingatorchamps:
Thanks for the discussion, everyone. Wyogator hit it on the head. One of the concepts that I've noticed so many Americans missing as I see it reported in the media is that paying taxes DOES NOT equal charity. If the government is taking money from one person and giving it to someone else, that's redistribution of income. You can't deduct your taxes from your taxes. You can deduct charitable contributions from your taxes.

Tax definitions and discussions aside, the opportunity to exhibit charity occurs when you keep what you've earned and then exercise your own free will and choice to give that away. This will be tomorrow night's lesson. Please, please, please don't confuse the two because they are not equal. You're really fooling yourself if you look at yourself in the mirror and actually believe that you're giving 50% of your gross income to charity when it's really being sucked off of you through taxes.

For those of you who don't mind funding the plethora of gov't. programs that exist today at multiple levels of gov't, that's your choice. I suggest trying a different tactic: after you pay your taxes, take a double digit percentage of your GROSS income and offer that to charity. Doing that, I promise, will certainly bring a smile to your face.

Happy Halloween!

So I take it with your Pub and Dem lesson to the kids you told them they should hate paying taxes if it provides medical care or jobs for Americans, but taxes to rebuild the country of people who hate us and didn't need their country rebuilt before we destroyed it and incited crazy terrorists to start blowing up the people of that country as well as our own soldiers is just fine and dandy.

The government cannot create a job. It can only take money from the private sector, spend 30 to 60% on overhead, then pay people. Every dollar the govt takes to provide a job is money that the private sector can't spend on a job. It's a wash or worse. How many jobs has the stimulus spending actually created? At what cost per job? Unemployment has continued to worsen all year despite all this spending for jobs.

This isn't the proper thread to debate which wars we're in or shouldn't be in, but at least national defense is a constitutionally required responsibility of the federal government. I'm not a cretin who thinks we shouldn't help the truly destitute, but every time the government provides these services there is tremendous waste, fraud and (usually) massive cost overruns and unintended consequences.

Found some actual figures. $339 billion stimulus spending so far. White House is claiming 1 million jobs "created or saved". (Not sure how to count a saved job, but this is how they report it).

Dividing 339 bil by 1 mil you get...TADA...

$339,000 spent per job "created or saved"!!!

As we like to say, your tax dollars at work!

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Found some actual figures. $339 billion stimulus spending so far. White House is claiming 1 million jobs "created or saved". (Not sure how to count a saved job, but this is how they report it).

Dividing 339 bil by 1 mil you get...TADA...

$339,000 spent per job "created or saved"!!!

As we like to say, your tax dollars at work!

Actually they're saying it's 640k jobs so far which makes your argument look better if you aren't looking at what's going to happen with the economy the next few years.I assume you don't think unemployment and economic growth will improve.

But you still don't mention being upset about the $1 trillion and and still growing spent in Iraq.Do you think those tax dollars could have been better spent?Or is that all in the past and the $10 trillion national debt Obama inherited won't be affecting future generations as much as whatever this administration spends.

That's a big argument here about how this spending will affect future generations but pubs weren't too worried when Bush doubled the debt,with ONE TRILLION going to killing iraqis and paying off the military industrial complex which we've been doing quite well since 1960
and the early indo-china years.

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

In general government is NOT a charity, nor is it intended to be. It is what we choose to handle collectively. EVERYBODY agrees to some degree that there are collective goals that we should all have an OBLIGATION to support. National defense is one of them.

Of course, people can debate what should be left to the collective and what to the individual. While I may disagree with people on both sides on any particular expenditure or program, I understand there are generally arguments both ways.

What I tire of is this dogma of viewing it as "government charity", and that all collective efforts will and must fail, and that individual gratification is the key to a successful economy.

If people are going to take this anti collective argument all the time, then national defense should apply too. Payments to support it should be volutary, and military personnel should be volunteers. Any forced mechanism to make its citizenry pay these indivduals is clearly government charity, per your definition.

I fully understand that practically, the collective approach has inherent problems and will often fail, and is more often than not the most efficient way to approach a problem. However, there are times when it IS appropriate, and it IS efficient. Also, it can be successful, but is less likely to be so if people are taught from a young age that collective government efforts are inherently bad, and the most important civic issues is to keep from paying as much taxes as possible.

Also, as an aside, while I applaud your charity, it seems you kind of define charity as something that is for YOUR benefit, you do it because it makes YOU feel good, for YOUR gratification. To the extent it helps others, that seems secondary.

quote:

Originally posted by OPGator:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Found some actual figures. $339 billion stimulus spending so far. White House is claiming 1 million jobs "created or saved". (Not sure how to count a saved job, but this is how they report it).

Dividing 339 bil by 1 mil you get...TADA...

$339,000 spent per job "created or saved"!!!

As we like to say, your tax dollars at work!

Actually they're saying it's 640k jobs so far which makes your argument look better if you aren't looking at what's going to happen with the economy the next few years.I assume you don't think unemployment and economic growth will improve.

But you still don't mention being upset about the $1 trillion and and still growing spent in Iraq.Do you think those tax dollars could have been better spent?Or is that all in the past and the $10 trillion national debt Obama inherited won't be affecting future generations as much as whatever this administration spends.

That's a big argument here about how this spending will affect future generations but pubs weren't too worried when Bush doubled the debt,with ONE TRILLION going to killing iraqis and paying off the military industrial complex which we've been doing quite well since 1960
and the early indo-china years.

I work for a company that does some federal work and actually reports new jobs and jobs saved. The jobs saved calculatiion basically works like this - if the project is government funded, and the project takes one person 40 hours per week for a year, that is basically a job saved. It is probably a pretty reasonable assumption that without the funding, the project doesn't get done, and a job is lost somewhere in the system. When there is so much slack in the system, it is not as if federal activity is displacing private sector work.

So the 640K jobs are based upon funds expended for those programs. Now to the extent those are saved jobs, then that is continued income for those employees, which means more money spent in the economy, more economic activity, and even more saved jobs - so it is a multiplier effect. Also, that saved income will be taxed, and unemployment and other govt benefit payouts avoided, so that actually lowers the net cost of the stimulus program.

So by the time you take into account the multiplier effect to the economy and the increased tax revenue and reduced expenditures, the net govt dollars spent per total jobs saved is much less.

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

quote:

Originally posted by brianatwood:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

I've never had a gun pointed at me in the U.S.

BTW, I'm planning on volunteering in Africa on my next vacation so I went to your daughter's website. Unfortunately, the born-again Christian requirement makes me ineligible. requirement

Neither you nor I have had a gun pointed at us because we have obeyed the law and turned over our money. But you can't deny that we do it, at least in part, because the government under the law can incarcerate us if we don't...that is the gun pointed at us.

I applaud your decision to volunteer in Africa. While Our Own Home accepts any needy child, regardless of background or faith, it is a Christian ministry so there is a faith requirement for the volunteers. There are plenty of organizations doing great work that don't have that requirement...I'll ask Holly if she knows of any in her region. Be sure to get all your shots and begin taking the malaria preventive several weeks before you go.

Do you actually live in fear of the government coming, knocking down your door and forcing you to do something at gunpoint? That's pretty much what you're saying. I could, however, see that if you were Wesley Snipes.

Tax collection is efficient in the U.S. because they take it before you get your hands on it. No way they could be as successful if they had to use force.

I've found an NGO in the UK which does work in a small village in Tanzania that appears aboveboard and am currently in communication with them.

quote:

Originally posted by TraderGator:

quote:

Originally posted by brianatwood:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

I've never had a gun pointed at me in the U.S.

BTW, I'm planning on volunteering in Africa on my next vacation so I went to your daughter's website. Unfortunately, the born-again Christian requirement makes me ineligible. requirement

Don't do what the federal gov't tells you to do and see what happens.

You mean like run drugs or kidnap someone? I've got no plans in thosee areas.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
...military personnel should be volunteers. Any forced mechanism to make its citizenry pay these indivduals is clearly government charity, per your definition.

We are volunteers.

To make sure I have this straight, you equate paying Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen to train and defend this country against all enemies to giving welfare checks to someone so he can go buy a six pack of beer and then walk home to watch MSNBC?

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

In general government is NOT a charity, nor is it intended to be. It is what we choose to handle collectively. EVERYBODY agrees to some degree that there are collective goals that we should all have an OBLIGATION to support. National defense is one of them.

Of course, people can debate what should be left to the collective and what to the individual. While I may disagree with people on both sides on any particular expenditure or program, I understand there are generally arguments both ways.

What I tire of is this dogma of viewing it as "government charity", and that all collective efforts will and must fail, and that individual gratification is the key to a successful economy.

If people are going to take this anti collective argument all the time, then national defense should apply too. Payments to support it should be volutary, and military personnel should be volunteers. Any forced mechanism to make its citizenry pay these indivduals is clearly government charity, per your definition.

I fully understand that practically, the collective approach has inherent problems and will often fail, and is more often than not the most efficient way to approach a problem. However, there are times when it IS appropriate, and it IS efficient. Also, it can be successful, but is less likely to be so if people are taught from a young age that collective government efforts are inherently bad, and the most important civic issues is to keep from paying as much taxes as possible.

Also, as an aside, while I applaud your charity, it seems you kind of define charity as something that is for YOUR benefit, you do it because it makes YOU feel good, for YOUR gratification. To the extent it helps others, that seems secondary.

I don't like the term "collective"...it represents statism and the suppression of individualism. I think we agree that society, in part through the goverment, should see to basic needs of those who through circumstances often not of their own making need some assistance. Where we disagree is where the line is drawn...how many people should qualify for government assistance and why?

There is always a creep in every govt. program ever created. When are govt programs ever ended or reduced? The S-CHIP program began as a health insurance program for kids...now adults have been added. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, eventually you run out of other people's money.

We agree in principle that the destitute and helpless should be helped, we disagree on how expansive and universal that government assistance should be.

As far as reasons for being charitable, while I believe that charity work does benefit those who donate their resources and time, that isn't the reason to do it and I don't think you can really discern that from my initial "definition" above. You do it simply because it is the right and moral thing to do, because you see a need you can meet, because you are called to it by your belief system. The good feelings and personal benefits are just a bonus.

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

In general government is NOT a charity, nor is it intended to be. It is what we choose to handle collectively. EVERYBODY agrees to some degree that there are collective goals that we should all have an OBLIGATION to support. National defense is one of them.

Of course, people can debate what should be left to the collective and what to the individual. While I may disagree with people on both sides on any particular expenditure or program, I understand there are generally arguments both ways.

What I tire of is this dogma of viewing it as "government charity", and that all collective efforts will and must fail, and that individual gratification is the key to a successful economy.

If people are going to take this anti collective argument all the time, then national defense should apply too. Payments to support it should be volutary, and military personnel should be volunteers. Any forced mechanism to make its citizenry pay these indivduals is clearly government charity, per your definition.

I fully understand that practically, the collective approach has inherent problems and will often fail, and is more often than not the most efficient way to approach a problem. However, there are times when it IS appropriate, and it IS efficient. Also, it can be successful, but is less likely to be so if people are taught from a young age that collective government efforts are inherently bad, and the most important civic issues is to keep from paying as much taxes as possible.

Also, as an aside, while I applaud your charity, it seems you kind of define charity as something that is for YOUR benefit, you do it because it makes YOU feel good, for YOUR gratification. To the extent it helps others, that seems secondary.

I don't like the term "collective"...it represents statism and the suppression of individualism. I think we agree that society, in part through the goverment, should see to basic needs of those who through circumstances often not of their own making need some assistance. Where we disagree is where the line is drawn...how many people should qualify for government assistance and why?

There is always a creep in every govt. program ever created. When are govt programs ever ended or reduced? The S-CHIP program began as a health insurance program for kids...now adults have been added. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, eventually you run out of other people's money.

We agree in principle that the destitute and helpless should be helped, we disagree on how expansive and universal that government assistance should be.

As far as reasons for being charitable, while I believe that charity work does benefit those who donate their resources and time, that isn't the reason to do it and I don't think you can really discern that from my initial "definition" above. You do it simply because it is the right and moral thing to do, because you see a need you can meet, because you are called to it by your belief system. The good feelings and personal benefits are just a bonus.

Your first sentence about not liking the word "collective" kind of proves my point. Collectivism simplistically means putting the group goals first over the individuals. If you believe in country, military, church etc, undoubtably you believe in the concept of collectivism. You have taken a very basic concept and kind of twisted/demonized its definition.

Like I said, I understand you can debate what should be collective/societal obligations vs individual. As for for national health care, I tend to think some minimal level of health care is a collective responsibility, but I understand that is very debateable, and difficult to afford. However, I feel strongly that we have a collective responsibility to care for our children, just as we view it as a collective responsibility to educate them. Having educated and health kids is not only in their interests, it is in societies interest, and in my mind is the right and moral thing to do. The cost of the of expanded SCHIP program was about $30 billion over 4-5 years, to me a small price to pay, and funded by cigarette taxes.

As to why people give to charity, ultimately it doesn't really matter, the result is the same, so I can't really criticize the motives. I will say while I am never in a position to criticize any organization that provides support for children with AIDS in Africa, it does puzzle me that the only help accepted will be those of Christians. Will they only take money from Christians too? I would think in the interests of the kids, one would take any person who was qualified to help, regardless of religion. I can't help but be a bit cynical, and start to wonder if its as much about saving souls as saving lives - but again, I tread on dangerous ground. Until I am over there doing like minded work, I am not in a position to criticize.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

In general government is NOT a charity, nor is it intended to be. It is what we choose to handle collectively. EVERYBODY agrees to some degree that there are collective goals that we should all have an OBLIGATION to support. National defense is one of them.

Of course, people can debate what should be left to the collective and what to the individual. While I may disagree with people on both sides on any particular expenditure or program, I understand there are generally arguments both ways.

What I tire of is this dogma of viewing it as "government charity", and that all collective efforts will and must fail, and that individual gratification is the key to a successful economy.

If people are going to take this anti collective argument all the time, then national defense should apply too. Payments to support it should be volutary, and military personnel should be volunteers. Any forced mechanism to make its citizenry pay these indivduals is clearly government charity, per your definition.

I fully understand that practically, the collective approach has inherent problems and will often fail, and is more often than not the most efficient way to approach a problem. However, there are times when it IS appropriate, and it IS efficient. Also, it can be successful, but is less likely to be so if people are taught from a young age that collective government efforts are inherently bad, and the most important civic issues is to keep from paying as much taxes as possible.

Also, as an aside, while I applaud your charity, it seems you kind of define charity as something that is for YOUR benefit, you do it because it makes YOU feel good, for YOUR gratification. To the extent it helps others, that seems secondary.

I don't like the term "collective"...it represents statism and the suppression of individualism. I think we agree that society, in part through the goverment, should see to basic needs of those who through circumstances often not of their own making need some assistance. Where we disagree is where the line is drawn...how many people should qualify for government assistance and why?

There is always a creep in every govt. program ever created. When are govt programs ever ended or reduced? The S-CHIP program began as a health insurance program for kids...now adults have been added. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, eventually you run out of other people's money.

We agree in principle that the destitute and helpless should be helped, we disagree on how expansive and universal that government assistance should be.

As far as reasons for being charitable, while I believe that charity work does benefit those who donate their resources and time, that isn't the reason to do it and I don't think you can really discern that from my initial "definition" above. You do it simply because it is the right and moral thing to do, because you see a need you can meet, because you are called to it by your belief system. The good feelings and personal benefits are just a bonus.

Your first sentence about not liking the word "collective" kind of proves my point. Collectivism simplistically means putting the group goals first over the individuals. If you believe in country, military, church etc, undoubtably you believe in the concept of collectivism. You have taken a very basic concept and kind of twisted/demonized its definition.

Like I said, I understand you can debate what should be collective/societal obligations vs individual. As for for national health care, I tend to think some minimal level of health care is a collective responsibility, but I understand that is very debateable, and difficult to afford. However, I feel strongly that we have a collective responsibility to care for our children, just as we view it as a collective responsibility to educate them. Having educated and health kids is not only in their interests, it is in societies interest, and in my mind is the right and moral thing to do. The cost of the of expanded SCHIP program was about $30 billion over 4-5 years, to me a small price to pay, and funded by cigarette taxes.

As to why people give to charity, ultimately it doesn't really matter, the result is the same, so I can't really criticize the motives. I will say while I am never in a position to criticize any organization that provides support for children with AIDS in Africa, it does puzzle me that the only help accepted will be those of Christians. Will they only take money from Christians too? I would think in the interests of the kids, one would take any person who was qualified to help, regardless of religion. I can't help but be a bit cynical, and start to wonder if its as much about saving souls as saving lives - but again, I tread on dangerous ground. Until I am over there doing like minded work, I am not in a position to criticize.

While you are correct in describing the concept of the collective in the context of military, church, etc, keep in mind that those are voluntary associations that the individual may choose. There is nothing "simplistic" about collectivism in govt. It is a specific political philosophy that ultimately suborns the rights of the individual. Our founders were dedicated to establishing a government that would protect the rights of the individual...especially property rights which they interpreted to include the fruits of our labor. They would be appalled at the size and intrusiveness of govt today.

Glad to know that the $30 billion is to you a small price to pay...it isn't to me. As they say, a few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
We agree that some minimal programs should be available for the genuinely needy, but the healthcare bills moving on Capitol Hill now are anything but minimal...they are massive.

As a Christian ministry, Our Own Home wants to help these children both physically and spiritually...no apologies, that is who we are. If you want to see how that expresses itself in real life circumstances, read this particular newsletter: Link

And yes, we do accept donations from anyone but unlike the government, all the donations we receive are fully voluntary!

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by wyogator:
Government charity is an oxymoron because everything government has to give is taken at the point of a gun.

True charity is the individual giving from their bounty according to the dictates of their conscience.

Government charity is also much more expensive than private charity because of the overhead.

In general government is NOT a charity, nor is it intended to be. It is what we choose to handle collectively. EVERYBODY agrees to some degree that there are collective goals that we should all have an OBLIGATION to support. National defense is one of them.

Of course, people can debate what should be left to the collective and what to the individual. While I may disagree with people on both sides on any particular expenditure or program, I understand there are generally arguments both ways.

What I tire of is this dogma of viewing it as "government charity", and that all collective efforts will and must fail, and that individual gratification is the key to a successful economy.

If people are going to take this anti collective argument all the time, then national defense should apply too. Payments to support it should be volutary, and military personnel should be volunteers. Any forced mechanism to make its citizenry pay these indivduals is clearly government charity, per your definition.

I fully understand that practically, the collective approach has inherent problems and will often fail, and is more often than not the most efficient way to approach a problem. However, there are times when it IS appropriate, and it IS efficient. Also, it can be successful, but is less likely to be so if people are taught from a young age that collective government efforts are inherently bad, and the most important civic issues is to keep from paying as much taxes as possible.

Also, as an aside, while I applaud your charity, it seems you kind of define charity as something that is for YOUR benefit, you do it because it makes YOU feel good, for YOUR gratification. To the extent it helps others, that seems secondary.

I don't like the term "collective"...it represents statism and the suppression of individualism. I think we agree that society, in part through the goverment, should see to basic needs of those who through circumstances often not of their own making need some assistance. Where we disagree is where the line is drawn...how many people should qualify for government assistance and why?

There is always a creep in every govt. program ever created. When are govt programs ever ended or reduced? The S-CHIP program began as a health insurance program for kids...now adults have been added. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, eventually you run out of other people's money.

We agree in principle that the destitute and helpless should be helped, we disagree on how expansive and universal that government assistance should be.

As far as reasons for being charitable, while I believe that charity work does benefit those who donate their resources and time, that isn't the reason to do it and I don't think you can really discern that from my initial "definition" above. You do it simply because it is the right and moral thing to do, because you see a need you can meet, because you are called to it by your belief system. The good feelings and personal benefits are just a bonus.

Your first sentence about not liking the word "collective" kind of proves my point. Collectivism simplistically means putting the group goals first over the individuals. If you believe in country, military, church etc, undoubtably you believe in the concept of collectivism. You have taken a very basic concept and kind of twisted/demonized its definition.

Like I said, I understand you can debate what should be collective/societal obligations vs individual. As for for national health care, I tend to think some minimal level of health care is a collective responsibility, but I understand that is very debateable, and difficult to afford. However, I feel strongly that we have a collective responsibility to care for our children, just as we view it as a collective responsibility to educate them. Having educated and health kids is not only in their interests, it is in societies interest, and in my mind is the right and moral thing to do. The cost of the of expanded SCHIP program was about $30 billion over 4-5 years, to me a small price to pay, and funded by cigarette taxes.

As to why people give to charity, ultimately it doesn't really matter, the result is the same, so I can't really criticize the motives. I will say while I am never in a position to criticize any organization that provides support for children with AIDS in Africa, it does puzzle me that the only help accepted will be those of Christians. Will they only take money from Christians too? I would think in the interests of the kids, one would take any person who was qualified to help, regardless of religion. I can't help but be a bit cynical, and start to wonder if its as much about saving souls as saving lives - but again, I tread on dangerous ground. Until I am over there doing like minded work, I am not in a position to criticize.

While you are correct in describing the concept of the collective in the context of military, church, etc, keep in mind that those are voluntary associations that the individual may choose. There is nothing "simplistic" about collectivism in govt. It is a specific political philosophy that ultimately suborns the rights of the individual. Our founders were dedicated to establishing a government that would protect the rights of the individual...especially property rights which they interpreted to include the fruits of our labor. They would be appalled at the size and intrusiveness of govt today.

Glad to know that the $30 billion is to you a small price to pay...it isn't to me. As they say, a few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
We agree that some minimal programs should be available for the genuinely needy, but the healthcare bills moving on Capitol Hill now are anything but minimal...they are massive.

As a Christian ministry, Our Own Home wants to help these children both physically and spiritually...no apologies, that is who we are. If you want to see how that expresses itself in real life circumstances, read this particular newsletter: Link

And yes, we do accept donations from anyone but unlike the government, all the donations we receive are fully voluntary!

I keeep repeating myself.Were you or were not as outraged with the govt spending over a TRILLION dollars and counting to kill Iraqis and build a new nation for people who mostly hate us and throw shoes at our President?That's one TRILLION dollars that didn't show up in the 5 TRILLION increase of the national debt.

Or do you just get upset when your tax dollars are spent rebuilding our infrastructure and helping AMERICANS who have no health insurance?

I rather doubt you will be able to solve all the domestic problems this country has by giving $8000 to every family.I'd probably spend mine trying to upgrade my Gator football seats.

It might stimulate the economy to some extent but it would never rebuild the infrastructure and provide health insurance for everyone who needs it which to my way of thinking is more important than killing iraqis.

Pubs spend their whole life chastising big govt as if they weren't part of the govt.How much smaller did govt get during the 6 years that you had a pub President and control of both houses of congress?

Nobody likes paying taxes which is just human nature and yes congress does spend too much money.But they are spending the money for the people who elected them and if they didn't then they would probably lose in their next election to somebody else who would also spend govt revenue for those that elected them.

Nothing is ever going to change until we pass a balanced budget amendment.The dems obviously don't want a balanced budget so why didn't the pubs introduce a bill for one while they were in power?Probably because too many rich govt contractors in the military industrial complex didn't want them to do so.

I'd be willing to bet that you could put a pub in every seat in congress as well as in the oval office and you still wouldn't have a balanced budget as long as there are wars to be fought somewhere that we can kill dark skin people who hate us and profit from their natural resources.

Excerpt of an opinion piece in yesterday's Kansas City Star with some relevant thoughts...

quote:

(3 Rival Definitions of Justice)

Definition one is the maximization of social welfare — the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But utilitarianism, in Sandel’s view, has glaring weaknesses. It allows no principled defense of individual rights. What if the sum of social happiness is increased by throwing a minority to the lions? And utilitarianism ultimately can make no distinction between fulfilling higher forms of happiness and degraded ones. Why should we prefer the pleasures of art museums to the pleasures of dog fighting?

A second definition of justice consists of respecting individual freedom. This approach can take the form of market-based libertarianism — the belief that justice is identical to the free choices of consenting adults. Or it can have a more egalitarian expression, in which society is organized for the benefit of its least advantaged members. But both of these views assume that government’s only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.

Many Americans would find this view not only unobjectionable but unassailable.

Sandel assails it.

“I do not think,” he says, “that freedom of choice — even freedom of choice under fair conditions — is an adequate basis for a just society.”

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely a result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions — a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are “bound by some moral ties we haven’t chosen.”

Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights, but to honor and reward civic virtues — patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Read the entire piece here: A master of wrestling with moral questions (link)

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:
Excerpt of an opinion piece in yesterday's Kansas City Star with some relevant thoughts...

quote:

(3 Rival Definitions of Justice)

Definition one is the maximization of social welfare — the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But utilitarianism, in Sandel’s view, has glaring weaknesses. It allows no principled defense of individual rights. What if the sum of social happiness is increased by throwing a minority to the lions? And utilitarianism ultimately can make no distinction between fulfilling higher forms of happiness and degraded ones. Why should we prefer the pleasures of art museums to the pleasures of dog fighting?

A second definition of justice consists of respecting individual freedom. This approach can take the form of market-based libertarianism — the belief that justice is identical to the free choices of consenting adults. Or it can have a more egalitarian expression, in which society is organized for the benefit of its least advantaged members. But both of these views assume that government’s only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.

Many Americans would find this view not only unobjectionable but unassailable.

Sandel assails it.

“I do not think,” he says, “that freedom of choice — even freedom of choice under fair conditions — is an adequate basis for a just society.”

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely a result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions — a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are “bound by some moral ties we haven’t chosen.”

Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights, but to honor and reward civic virtues — patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Read the entire piece here: A master of wrestling with moral questions (link)

Definition one reminds me of the Dave Denslow discussion of Marginal utility.

The for the info - while I have repeatedly acknowledged that one can certainly debate societal vs individual benefit on any particular program or problem, I get really tired of this dogma by some that it is all about the individual and the hope is that they will act individually in a way that collectively optimizes everything. The Constitution and bill of rights were written to protect particular individual rights and to balance individual rights vs collectivism, I don't think they were intended to state that its all about the individual and societal obligations are defacto null and void.

If you are for a system of laws, then you are for societal collectivism. Pure individualism approaches anarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:
Excerpt of an opinion piece in yesterday's Kansas City Star with some relevant thoughts...

quote:

(3 Rival Definitions of Justice)

Definition one is the maximization of social welfare — the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But utilitarianism, in Sandel’s view, has glaring weaknesses. It allows no principled defense of individual rights. What if the sum of social happiness is increased by throwing a minority to the lions? And utilitarianism ultimately can make no distinction between fulfilling higher forms of happiness and degraded ones. Why should we prefer the pleasures of art museums to the pleasures of dog fighting?

A second definition of justice consists of respecting individual freedom. This approach can take the form of market-based libertarianism — the belief that justice is identical to the free choices of consenting adults. Or it can have a more egalitarian expression, in which society is organized for the benefit of its least advantaged members. But both of these views assume that government’s only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.

Many Americans would find this view not only unobjectionable but unassailable.

Sandel assails it.

“I do not think,” he says, “that freedom of choice — even freedom of choice under fair conditions — is an adequate basis for a just society.”

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely a result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions — a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are “bound by some moral ties we haven’t chosen.”

Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights, but to honor and reward civic virtues — patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Read the entire piece here: A master of wrestling with moral questions (link)

Our government does reward private charity and good works in one way...tax deductions. But what is social justice? In our era it mean equalizing outcomes...redistribution of wealth. Do you agree with this concept or definition of community?