Nelson Mandela Found a Way to Completely Lose My Respect

[volinbham]

I think we would all acknowledge that there is a continuum running from people that truly cannot help themselves to those that intentionally play the system for personal gain.

Our approach has favored allowing the latter to try to help the former. It has also favored the federal government directly touching these individuals as opposed to more macro approaches to provide opportunities to those that can help themselves.

Worse, we continually grow the % of govt. spending that goes towards entitlements. Do a Google search on entitlement spending and you'll see the rapid growth and frightening projections for future spending. Phil Graham was partially right. We have become a nation of whiners that looks to someone else to solve our problems.

 

[volinbham]

In BPV's world, C and D make up the overwhelming majority of the poor. And in that world, why pay the poor any attention?

The BIG question is does financial assistance to the poor alleviate the problem, exacerbate the problem or have no effect on the problem.

Could it be that welfare style programs actually create more of C and D?

 

[BigPapaVol]

In BPV's world, C and D make up the overwhelming majority of the poor. And in that world, why pay the poor any attention?

that is not true. I said the majority, not the overwhelming variety.

Are you saying that you believe the majority of the poor can't do anything to help their own situation? How is that the vast majority of the US was poor in the 30s and 40s, yet we made it without exhorting the wealthy to pay for the poor? How is it that my family made it?

 

[BigPapaVol]

The BIG question is does financial assistance to the poor alleviate the problem, exacerbate the problem or have no effect on the problem.

Could it be that welfare style programs actually create more of C and D?

There is absolutely no doubt.

 

[TennNC]

Mark 10:21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

So I guess you will be leaving us after you sell your possessions (i.e., computer) and give to the poor. Or is it “do as I say and not as I do”.

Just kidding TennNC. We would miss you.

Thanks. Someone else would take my place though, I'm sure, and y'all would have fresh meat to feed on.

 

[TennNC]

I think they said let him who has means share with those without. Where this falls short is the definition of need? 1) They don't define it, you didn't define it and we all have a different viewpoint.

Him who has none is a different guy to you and I. 2) I'm all for helping those who justifiably have none. Otherwise, I'm all for those who have none but have the wherewithal to fill the gap, figuring it out.

3) I guess you're all for the blanket statement that it's a moral responsibility to give to everyone who deserves it and that we should all have relatively equal financial outcomes.

1) I agree.

2) From the sound of your other posts, I'm surprised you'd say this. Why are you for this? Why not let them fend for themselves and figure it out on their own? Unless you're speaking only about those who were born with a physical or mental deformity or become deformed through no fault of their own. Everyone else, you're on your own, right?

3) your guess is hyperbolic and incorrect.

 

[BigPapaVol]

1) I agree.

2) From the sound of your other posts, I'm surprised you'd say this. Why are you for this? Why not let them fend for themselves and figure it out on their own? Unless you're speaking only about those who were born with a physical or mental deformity or become deformed through no fault of their own. Everyone else, you're on your own, right?

3) your guess is hyperbolic and incorrect.

pretty much correct.

as to my hyperbole, it's no different than your use of the same tactic from the opposite slant.

 

[TennNC]

pretty much correct.

as to my hyperbole, it's no different than your use of the same tactic from the opposite slant.

So, in your work with your church, do you only help those who are disabled through no fault of their own? I'd assume you'd make sure your talents (time and resources) would only go toward those recipients.

 

[BigPapaVol]

So, in your work with your church, do you only help those who are disabled through no fault of their own? I'd assume you'd make sure your talents (time and resources) would only go toward those recipients.

our church quickly weeds out the vagrants, if that's what you're getting at.

we help everyone at first, thereafter it's different.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolByBirth]

My parents shoved education down my throat and told me to get a scholarship or lump it.

Everyone can't do the same. Everyone doesn't need to do the same. Everyone can make the effort it takes to provide for themselves. Those incapable due to physical or mental infirmity, again, I'm all for helping.

This is actually one of the better threads I've read of late. Very interesting and some pretty good points on both sides. Just a few questions though: With your highlighted statement above doesn't greed create a problem with this? Said another way, if there is a finite amount of money in the world and certain people are "achieving" more (accumulating more wealth) then it has to be at the expense of someone elses ability to do so. The more wealth that certain persons accumulate, the less opportunity there is for those lower off. It's the same reason we have anti-trust laws -- it limits free market movement.

I'm not saying everyone strives to be a billionnaire but I'm certain that most people want and look for ways to make more money.

 

[KB5252]

This is actually one of the better threads I've read of late. Very interesting and some pretty good points on both sides. Just a few questions though: With your highlighted statement above doesn't greed create a problem with this? Said another way, if there is a finite amount of money in the world and certain people are "achieving" more (accumulating more wealth) then it has to be at the expense of someone elses ability to do so. The more wealth that certain persons accumulate, the less opportunity there is for those lower off. It's the same reason we have anti-trust laws -- it limits free market movement.

I'm not saying everyone strives to be a billionnaire but I'm certain that most people want and look for ways to make more money.

Is there a finite amount of money?

 

[utvolpj]

I'm not saying everyone strives to be a billionnaire but I'm certain that most people want and look for ways to make more money.

of course they look and that's where the argument starts. Look on your own or look to others (gov't) the supply it.

 

[VolByBirth]

Is there a finite amount of money?

I realize there is some argument about this because we have nothing tangible backing up the value of the dollar (like the gold standard, etc) -- but yes, there has to be some finite level of money or the value would quickly drop to zero.

 

[VolByBirth]

of course they look and that's where the argument starts. Look on your own or look to others (gov't) the supply it.

OK, I hear you....but at the same time, we don't do anything to limit the max wealth of any one person or group which in effect takes money away from others. Be clear, I'm not saying we should -- but just noting you can't have unlimited ability to earn cash and also not have a certain amount of poor people -- it's not possible.

 

[BigPapaVol]

This is actually one of the better threads I've read of late. Very interesting and some pretty good points on both sides. Just a few questions though: With your highlighted statement above doesn't greed create a problem with this? Said another way, if there is a finite amount of money in the world and certain people are "achieving" more (accumulating more wealth) then it has to be at the expense of someone elses ability to do so. The more wealth that certain persons accumulate, the less opportunity there is for those lower off. It's the same reason we have anti-trust laws -- it limits free market movement.

I'm not saying everyone strives to be a billionnaire but I'm certain that most people want and look for ways to make more money.

wow, that's absolutely nuts. Wealth has always been the driver for new means of generating more wealth. That investable capital is what makes our capitalist system tick, along with ability to accept risk in generating products or services that the market will pay a premium for.

 

[MG1968]

I realize there is some argument about this because we have nothing tangible backing up the value of the dollar (like the gold standard, etc) -- but yes, there has to be some finite level of money or the value would quickly drop to zero.

I think the two of you are confusing "wealth" with "money" there's an infinite amount of wealth. Money being printed for no other reason than to dump it into the economy is disastrous, but if that money is being created through wealth generation, that's a good thing.

 

[VolByBirth]

wow, that's absolutely nuts. Wealth has always been the driver for new means of generating more wealth. That investable capital is what makes our capitalist system tick, along with ability to accept risk in generating products or services that the market will pay a premium for.

Supply side vs. Keynesian

 

[VolByBirth]

I think the two of you are confusing "wealth" with "money" there's an infinite amount of wealth. Money being printed for no other reason than to dump it into the economy is disastrous, but if that money is being created through wealth generation, that's a good thing.

You're completely right -- I meant to make note that I was misusing the term in my last post. This may lead to the confusion. My bad on that one.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Supply side vs. Keynesian

doesn't matter. The idea that some people are wealthy BECAUSE other are poor is a base tenet of Marxism and one I find particularly distasteful.

 

[TennNC]

doesn't matter. The idea that some people are wealthy BECAUSE other are poor is a base tenet of Marxism and one I find particularly distasteful.

Wait - let me guess. You're going to say that we control our own destinies, and that everyone can be rich - if we all just work really hard and don't rely on anyone else and figure it out for ourselves, we'll all be well-off, right? And I don't mean everybody "can" be rich - I mean everybody "will" be rich. We don't need poor people for there to be rich people, do we?

Take for example migrant farm workers here on H2A visas, some of whom I met yesterday on a tobacco farm in NC. They work 11-hr days, 5 and a half days a week (in 100-plus degree heat, but that's beside the point). And at the end of the year, they take home a whopping $11,000.00, before taxes (which they do pay, along with transportation to and from Mexico). So, all they have to do is work another 149 years, live a frugal life in the meantime, and then they can enjoy the fruits of their labor, just like that wealthy tobacco farmer and cigarette manufacturer who are creating all that wealth for them.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Wait - let me guess. You're going to say that we control our own destinies, and that everyone can be rich - if we all just work really hard and don't rely on anyone else and figure it out for ourselves, we'll all be well-off, right? And I don't mean everybody "can" be rich - I mean everybody "will" be rich. We don't need poor people for there to be rich people, do we?

Take for example migrant farm workers here on H2A visas, some of whom I met yesterday on a tobacco farm in NC. They work 11-hr days, 5 and a half days a week (in 100-plus degree heat, but that's beside the point). And at the end of the year, they take home a whopping $11,000.00, before taxes (which they do pay, along with transportation to and from Mexico). So, all they have to do is work another 149 years, live a frugal life in the meantime, and then they can enjoy the fruits of their labor, just like that wealthy tobacco farmer and cigarette manufacturer who are creating all that wealth for them.

Why does the government have to support them at the expense of the citizen?

Is that not tyranny?

 

[volinbham]

Take for example migrant farm workers here on H2A visas, some of whom I met yesterday on a tobacco farm in NC. They work 11-hr days, 5 and a half days a week (in 100-plus degree heat, but that's beside the point). And at the end of the year, they take home a whopping $11,000.00, before taxes (which they do pay, along with transportation to and from Mexico). So, all they have to do is work another 149 years, live a frugal life in the meantime, and then they can enjoy the fruits of their labor, just like that wealthy tobacco farmer and cigarette manufacturer who are creating all that wealth for them.

They are relatively rich compared to where they came from - the apparent reason they are here. Isn't the cigarette manufacturer actually creating an opportunity for them to have more wealth than they otherwise would have had? They are building relative wealth in Mexico. If they became citizens here, they could move out of those jobs into better jobs.

Would they be better off if there was government mandated wage high enough that citizens chose those jobs? Would they be better off if they didn't work their butts off?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Wait - let me guess. You're going to say that we control our own destinies, and that everyone can be rich - if we all just work really hard and don't rely on anyone else and figure it out for ourselves, we'll all be well-off, right? And I don't mean everybody "can" be rich - I mean everybody "will" be rich. We don't need poor people for there to be rich people, do we?

Take for example migrant farm workers here on H2A visas, some of whom I met yesterday on a tobacco farm in NC. They work 11-hr days, 5 and a half days a week (in 100-plus degree heat, but that's beside the point). And at the end of the year, they take home a whopping $11,000.00, before taxes (which they do pay, along with transportation to and from Mexico). So, all they have to do is work another 149 years, live a frugal life in the meantime, and then they can enjoy the fruits of their labor, just like that wealthy tobacco farmer and cigarette manufacturer who are creating all that wealth for them.

not at all. equal outcomes is a stupid idea from your side of the aisle and one I would never espouse in the least. Wealth is relative and there is no arguing that. Hard work is a capacity we all have and can use to our advantage, but there are no guarantees. People earn what the market will bear for their time, ability or service. That won't and shouldn't change. Those working for the benefit of others have the option to stop, at least in our society. If the relationship weren't mutually beneficial , there would be no workforce.

I know you are itching to assess blame or to gin up some false responsibility for the wealthy to care for everyone else, but those are patently socialistic ideas.
I'm a firm believer that people control their destinies in our society moreso than any other civilization in the history of our world. To the extent that we have gravitated to your apparent ideals, we have weakened that strength of our nation. If we continue listening to the plight of the less fortunate in our society and making rules that force the fortunate to help, we will continue our slide away from the individualism that has been the hallmark of our nation. Ideas pitting the wealthy as the adversary of the poor is exactly the thinking that has sped the process and transitioned us toward the enormous welfare state we have. Forget the disastrous financial angle of FDRs programs, lament the mental pansies that it has made of us.
Posted via VolNation Mobile