Ryan “Lie” was the Truth — Part 3

August 31, 2012 jack 45 comments

Sally Kohn goes on with her lies:

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

Now here’s the real kicker. To prove this “fact,” she links to a Polifact article which does not mention Medicare at all!

0bama himself brags about those cuts to Medicare.

Cutting Medicare reimbursement rates is a cut to Medicare.

Den of Thieves, Health Care, Obamanation, media none

Comments

Written by Rtwng Extrmst about 9 months ago.

Isn’t the real problem here that Obama takes these proposed savings and transfers them to a totally different program (Obamacare) thereby basically raiding the coffers of Medicare? In Ryan’s case these same assumed savings are used to save the existing Medicare program, no?
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

I suspect the counter argument is that reduction in fraud and improvements in system efficiency make it possible to transfer funding without affecting level of service. If it were an R proposal it would be described as a tax cut.
Written by ACTivist about 9 months ago.

No, if it were a tax cut then taxes to individuals would be reduced since an EXCESS of monies was now shown. When the coffers get too full, you don’t invent programs to utilize the excess on. If they were picking money off the money tree, would you say that was from the grace of GOD? Of course it is. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t work in government. Too many IOU’s as there is.
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

A more efficient government that produces more services for the same tax load is better than the alternative of higher taxes.

The ugly truth is we spend too much on health care for the elderly. Elderly people will consume infinite health care without a rationing system. You can ration based on ability to pay for premium service or do a cost benefit analysis and only provide free medical care that costs less than say $500 per day of extended life expectancy. Right now we reduce the reimbursements to doctors so they make the decision not to provide certain care (it isn’t profitable) so politicians have cover against the charge that they are pushing grandma off the cliff.
Written by Alecto about 9 months ago.

I have a real dilemma and am hoping someone can help. I am struggling with election choices for Virginia. So much focus has been placed on Obama vs. Romney, that other important races are overlooked. I voted for Frank Wolf twice. I won’t vote for him this year. I woke up one day and realized that principles either mean something or they don’t. He voted for every program I opposed. There are things I respect about Wolf, but I absolutely cannot do the same thing over and over again expecting different results. There are no 3rd party candidates I can support. I won’t vote for a Democrat. Any suggestions? Withhold my vote? Please help! No libertarians here in Loudoun apparently.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

Write in Joe Budzinski!!

The problem stems from our winner-take-all elections. A better system is that everyone gets 11 votes (or however many representatives your State has), and one may cast those votes any way one wishes — one for each of eleven candidates, all eleven for one, or anything in between. Then you will see the occasional Libertarian or Communist elected to the House.

The other problem that arises in our winner-take-all elections is that people are unwilling to challenge their incumbent representatives in primaries. If they lose, their party ostracizes them and their political career is over. If they win, their party’s prospects in the general election are considerably reduced.

The way around this is to have “no confidence” votes (in which all voters, not just those registered to the party) prior to the primaries. If the candidate loses that up-or-down vote, he’s out and cannot run in the primary or general election. If he wins, he cannot be challenged in a primary.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

Special Ed, for once you’re stop on.

The most expensive part is the “heroic efforts” at the end of life. So require the children and grandchildren of the patient to pay for the final month of care. If the family is not willing to pay for those “heroic efforts,” no-one else should be required to pay for them.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Or we could just put the old folks on an ice floe and shove them out to sea so the younguns can save a few bucks and afford the latest IPod.

What too many do not get is that this argument is extending far beyond the “heroic efforts” at the end of life, which is increasingly being taken care of by powers of attorney and pre-crisis statements to make no heroic effort and just let a loved one in extremis go in peace. But we are now at a level of talking about the elderly who may still have a desire to enjoy their “golden years” and their families a bit longer. It is they whose doctors will be told that, because of their alleged diminished value to society, they should be denied anything but minimal health care procedures. Therein is that thing about taking a pain pill and going to sit in a corner and wait to die. And, if your doctor feels that such policy is an abomination of the soul, he will be coerced into it by a refusal to reimburse him for his work at the value of that work.

Just a couple of months ago, Mrs. W had to let her beloved mother go under those circumstances of extremis. It was made easier by the fact that her parents had been smart enough to arrange to pay for their own end-of-life care and by a strong family religious belief in the afterlife — that they will all be reunited someday. But this is one Senior citizen who will tell you that, if you deny me or anyone else care when they still have a desire to enjoy life and family just a bit longer, you had better enjoy your tax savings here because they do not use money in Hell.
Written by Lovisa about 9 months ago.

Wolve-
I’m serious about this. How does one arrange to pay for one’s own end of life care?
One doesn’t know the time span involved.
Written by squiddy about 9 months ago.

“I suspect the counter argument is that reduction in fraud and improvements in system efficiency make it possible to transfer funding without affecting level of service. ”

Without making reference to any specific policies/proposals, this *could* be the most compelling argument for Romney – no business would ever survive, nor deserve to, if they were subject to the incredible outright fraud the government suffers – never mind inefficiencies, it leaks money like a sieve, and to the simplest of scams. We lose 10’s, perhaps 100’s of billions a year to this, and only an agency that prints money would continue to allow it to happen. Someone with his resume has certainly had to make business efficiencies a priority when turning around companies, and so would seem to have the experience to bring some discipline and regulation to the entity that needs it most – our government.

Note that it’s just theoretical at this point, I don’t think Romney has effectively made the case that that’s a priority for him – but I wish he would. The current President certainly hasn’t shown any inclination than to just shovel more money into that leaky pipeline
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

W, end of life is just as contenous as beginning of life. However we need to continue to have the discussion since both ends are affected by government health care actions.

Once someone’s soul has departed through demetia, maintaining the shell of a body through feeding tubes is not a good use of scare resources that could be diverted to vacinating kids in Africa. It is a tough call since if you do nothing there is natural death. It is only through technology that feeding tubes extend life. Still, providing loving care to an elderly relative by not letting them starve to death is an act of love that humanity needs too. Abandoning the elderly on a proverbial ice float is cruelty that will permeate our culture harming our response to other social problem such as crime.

I like the relational model instead of a DNA model for defining life. Life begins when there are individuals willing and able to invest in nurturing a new life and it ends when one can not maintain one’s own life and no one else is willing to share their limited resources to keep one alive.

Pain medication, food, water and a seat in the corner of the hospise is our shared basic human obligation. However I would support using government funds to provide more than that minimum obligation when the additional health care allows an elderly person to maintain a relationship with society. I don’t think elderly should be dependent on offspring for their survival or comfort. We all have a connection and interest in their wisdom and history and we all benefit from a continued relationship as long as they are lucid.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Lovisa — Both of those parents came from religiously devout farm families with twelve kids apiece, one an immigrant family and the other first generation. In neither case was there an inheritance except for the work ethic and a real respect for personal finances. The man had a 9th grade education and was a self-taught artiste in his trade; the woman got through high school and learned how to deal with the company books and the taxes. They worked hard to build a small business (just a two-person business) and learned how to invest wisely in both the market and land. They had also learned frugality from their own parents and added to that a careful legal program for their wealth and their medical care and end-of-life care. Neither took a government dime for health care or retirement. That end-of-life care was paid for by insurance and their estate; and, by the time of death, those were a long way from being exhausted, having already paid for much medical care over the pre-death decade. Both lived into their 90’s. They were from the so-called “Greatest Generation,” having survived both war and depression. Their children had no problem with end-of-life taking funds out of their own inheritance because those parents had given all of them something that money could not buy: you make your own bed, you make it wisely, and then you lie in it.

As that woman lay dying, I, only a relative through marriage but a genealogist and family historian, was given the honor of writing her obituary. As I sifted through the memories of her life, the obituary grew longer and longer until it finally cost over $700 to have it posted in the newspapers. It was a life well lived and one which touched hundreds of others in a positive way. I also wrote biographies of her and her husband just for the family. When one of the young grandsons sat down to read those biographies, he remarked that he had never realized how much his grandfather had done, how independent he was, and how much courage he had to take risks based on his own self-confidence. And that pair of Americans paid their own way — right to their final hour on earth.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

I still contend that if their family is not willing to pay for their care, no-one else should be forced to do so.
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

Jack, orphans with no offspring still have a value to society. The destitude deserve compassion too.

There is no equality here; there is going to be lesser quality of care if one has no money or one has no family to contribute. Still, basic care is an obligation to humanity even if it doesn’t make direct economic sense. It is an investment in a community instead of dividing us into a pack of tribes only interested in preserving our own. (That family identity that you promote sounds a lot like the leftist ideology of ethnic and racial grouping identity.)

The tribalism of the Middle East or of Africa is not a better model than the shared concern for all humanity exhibited in the charity of western democracies. We are wealthier when we accept the shared community concept because we have less ethnic infighting and more collaboration.

Bottom line: you benefit economically from helping to pay for basic care of people unrelated to you.
Written by Had Enough about 9 months ago.

Wolve, I just began delving into genealogy, one ancestor in particular. The problem is that I have found myself making excuses for someone that died years before I was born that no one ever mentioned or had a photo of.

I find this person intriguing, but also sad.

Sometimes, I think the past is maybe best left in the past.

He wasn’t a criminal or anything like that, I believe he was a victim of his own heart.

Is there a certain venue that you think is better for searching than the others?
Written by Lovisa about 9 months ago.

Wolve
That’a moving story. Wish we all could do the same. However, many many people live from paycheck to paycheck and will never be able to save enough to cover the last years of life.

As for ending lives before nature’s date / my brother-in-law had stomach cancer; had never been sick before. When he knew it was incurable he shot himself. My daughter’s father-in-law, a retired medical doctor, did the same when he was sick and tired of being sick.
(It would have been kinder of the doctor if he had amassed a bunch of pills, instead of shooting himself in his backyard on a Sunday morning)
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

HE — There is an old adage pertaining to genealogy: “You are who you were.” It is true that you cannot live with the dead, but you can certainly find out what brought people to the stage in which they find themselves in the present. And you just accept the bad you may find with the good. It is all part of what you are.

There is a part of Mrs. W’s family which seems to have had a great toughness with regard to the difficulties of life and a strong self-protection of family that mixed often with a compassion for others which surfaced out of that toughness and independence. They had a young man in the family who died in action in France in WW II. They mourned him for a long time, but their knowledge of exactly how he died was rather sketchy. So, I went to work on the life and death of that young Army lieutenant until I find out that he had died while trying to carry one of his wounded men out of the line of fire, not just once when he was felled by German rifle fire but he rose from the ground once again to make another try, this time taking a fatal shot from a German tank. This I told his family because they knew only vaguely that he had been given posthumously the Silver Star for gallantry after doing something in particular on the battlefield. But then I told them something none of them had ever known: that lad was also awarded the Cross of Valor for his actions on that fatal day — the Cross is second only to the Medal of Honor. Somehow, in that time of grief, wartime confusion, and burial, no one had ever told them.

In him was embodied that combination of toughness and compassion. The generation that actually knew him personally is passing, but the generations following will now know who he was and what he did. I made sure of that by preparing an exhibit on his life and death for a family reunion not long ago attended by about 300-400. Not a famous general. Not a hero of history. Just a farmboy turned soldier with a strong heart, great courage, and a whole lot of compassion.

How to find such things? Well, Ancestry.com, a paid genealogical site, is the biggest around; but there are others on the web. There are also many other sites on the web which require some real scouting. In one instance, I had stumbled upon a young lad, related through marriage, who had joined the US Army in 1912, when he was only 17. He got homesick and deserted three times, getting tracked down each time, and was finally discharged without honor. Well, I thought, here is one of those delicate moments for the family tree. And then I came upon another site, this one concerning World War I soldiers from his home state. He had been drafted into the Army again in 1917. This time he went to France, was severely wounded in battle, and came home a corporal with war medals on his chest. Sometimes you are really surprised. And not just by the soldiers. I have seen many a family lose everything repeatedly during the Great Depression — jobs, homes, farms — and come fighting back hard with family togetherness and religious faith.

Sometimes I think we tend to forget how tough a breed we are. In “Travels With Charlie,” John Steinbeck addressed the American psyche. He cited the journeys of the immigrants from lands far away to this one, opining in essence that they had forsaken homelands, family, and all they knew, put together what little money they could manage, and come to this vast land on a promise and a prayer, not knowing what future was in store for them. They were, he posited, the brave ones. Those not so brave stayed home. Moreover, he felt a certainty that their spirit had been passed down through succeeding generations. I think we just buried one of those people. His name was Armstrong.

You also have to be prepared to debrief elderly people before their memories fade too far and to go through attics and old boxes full of forgotten mementos. On one occasion, a woman sent me a bundle of faded letters. It turns out they had been written by the young lieutenant cited above who had died in France. They were the special kind of letters which military men wrote at the time because they were censored and carried no clue as to where they were actually written. Now I had to figure them out. The lieutenant was worried. He wrote that he had finished training his men, and tomorrow he would find out if he had taught those boys the right things. I figured it out. That letter was written on the very eve of the invasion at Anzio. The lieutenant received his first Purple Heart on the Anzio beachhead. The second Purple Heart came after his death in France. I also found an old photo with an inscription on the back. That photo had been mailed after his death in France by his grieving captain, who said: “He was thoroughly brave, an outstanding leader… and my friend.”

As I said: “You are who you were.” And sometimes people learn that they may have things to live up to.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Precisely and spot on, Lovisa. Many do lack the financial skills, the opportunities, and the good fortune to be in a position to pay their own way in a crisis. Which is why I am not opposed to a social safety net for the truly deserving. But I insist that, if the government is going to distribute our “charitable” dollars, they do so with the same care most of us use in our personal charitable efforts: Do it smart. Do it honestly. Insist on strong protections against fraud. Finance it with common sense and a definitive plan for sustainability. Do not just throw money willy nilly at a problem and only shrug at the waste and fraud. Do not ignore the waste and fraud and then tell me that the answer is to take more dollars from someone else to make up the difference.

But, I will concede to Jack on this point. We once had a society in which many, many aging parents and other relatives were taken in toward the end of their lives by the children because those children felt a sense of love and responsibility. Those children elected to foot the bills. I don’t want to put budget-killing burdens on the modern generation when the cost of so many things is very high. But, in my opinion, we do waste a lot of our dollars on frivolous things. We ought to be obliged to at least participate to the best of our ability in the final care and sustenance of those who brought us into this world and gave us a chance to survive into adulthood. If that help is not enough, then I will quite willingly opt for compassion through both private charity and through a social safety net which is honestly and efficiently run. I agree, then, with Ed that a great nation is marked by its compassion. But I posit that it is also marked by its common sense and financial responsibility.

When I worked at my own government trade, I had to account for every dollar I spent. We had some no-nonsense “green eyeshades” to deal with. If I made a mistake on my accounting and came up short, I had to either figure out the error to balance those figures or take money out of my own pocket to make up the difference. My funds were not replenished until I did so. We need that kind of “green eyeshade” in every last corner of this governmental apparatus at every level and we need them as no-nonsense as mine were, even when I outranked them by several pay grades.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

“[Orphans] with no offspring still have a value to society. The destitude deserve compassion too.”

Special Ed, regarding those with no children — what the hell have they been spending their money on for the forty years of their working life, that they should be “destitute” at its end?

Have they no friends? Have they no church? Have they no civic society to which they belong? That is where they should turn for compassion.

“The tribalism of the Middle East or of Africa is not a better model than the shared concern for all humanity exhibited in the charity of western democracies.”

CHARITY is not government. Charity is GIVING. Government programs TAKE. One comes from God’s command to help each other, and the other violates God’s commandment not to steal. That is why charity has GOOD consequences, and government programs have BAD consequences.

Do the destitute deserve compassion? Certainly. That is what CHARITY is for, not what the GOVERNMENT is for.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

“Many do lack the financial skills, the opportunities, and the good fortune to be in a position to pay their own way in a crisis.”

Why does that give them a claim on other’s assets?

The bottom line is this:

Everything that we have, everything that we are, was given to us by GOD. Attempts to “redistribute” what God has distributed amount to placing one’s own wisdom above God’s. Repeatedly in the Bible, God calls on us as individuals to help the poor. Never is it demanded of the government to do so. Never are we called to take from one to help another.
Written by Lovisa about 9 months ago.

jack
Did gorvernments, as we know them, exist when the Bibile wa written?
Besides, to a certain extent, the Government is us.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

Certainly, Lovisa. There were kings, governors, prelates, the entire Roman Empire, etc., etc.

The government is not “us,” Lovisa. The government is a few people telling us what to do.

If X is a Good Idea, then enough of Us will support it with Our Own charitable giving. If not enough of Us do so, then We do not consider X such a Good Idea. If you wish to contend that X is such a Good Idea that money should be taken from Us because We are not giving enough to it Ourselves, then you must also believe that We are not smart enough to decide where Our money should go and what causes We should support.

If you believe that We are not smart enough to choose which charitable causes We will support with Our Own money, how can We possibly be smart enough to choose those who will choose for Us?
Written by Lovisa about 9 months ago.

The US Government is elected by the population, (those who bother to vote)
part of which you and I happen to be. Thus, the Government is us.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

Then why do you not trust Us to donate to those causes which are worth of our charitable donations?
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

Jack, you have every right to refuse to participate in society and government. You can take everything that God gave you at birth and live amounst the birds and trees in the Shenandoah forest.

Our government does not force you to pay taxes; there is no per capita tax…you only pay taxes if you participate in society by using banking institutions, transportation infrastructures, etc. You won’t be doing that if you reject all that government and society provides: money, technology, knowledge and wisdom.

God doesn’t provide education, air conditioning, and microwaved dinners. Those are available to you only if you agree to the social contract. You contribute to society and get money. You use the money to buy goods and services from others. Because some things are difficult to price individually, they are bundled and paid for through taxes collected on financial transactions. Just like cable, you may only need a few services but it is cheaper to provide them all to everyone than to come up with a mechanism to bill each services separately. This arrangement may seem unfair to those who watch only a few channels but economies of scale make it possible for you to choose from hundreds of channels for free since the bundled price is less than the price of a few channels. (BTW: Do you complain this bitterly to you cable provider, too?)

Social programs by government is not charity. It comes with strings attached. True charity has no strings. Government uses social programs as a carrot to keep people productive and civil. The carrot approach makes for a happier population than a government that just uses a stick. (I realize you prefer the stick approach but sticks are expensive too.) Social programs (whether of stick [law enforcement] or carrot [transfer payments] variety) on aggregate provide more benefit than cost. A worthy discussion is whether an individual program (stick or carrot) is “profitable” to society; a useless discussion is to argue that all carrot programs are theft while pretending that stick programs are not.
Written by The Bulletproof Monk about 9 months ago.

” the entire Roman Empire, etc”
Interesting (and completely appropriate) segway.
The Roman Empire FELL as a result of too many folks taking their perks, and not nearly enough paying in, even as they brought in outside money to try to shore up a failing free-for-all.

Sounds alot like Greece, and in time…..US.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

You’re a riot, Special Ed. The GOVERNMENT created air conditioners, education, and microwave dinners? Bitch, PLEASE.

“Social programs by government is not charity.”

You got that right — it is THEFT.

“Government uses social programs as a carrot to keep people productive and civil.”

How’s that been working out? Why is it that those on the public dole are those who are NOT productive but who ARE committing more of the crimes? Politician use these programs to buy votes, nothing more.

Yes, your “carrot” programs ARE theft. If they were worthwhile, people would willingly donate their own money to them. They don’t.

Law enforcement is NOT something that can be done by individuals or random groups of individuals. THAT’S why we have government.
Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 9 months ago.

The government created the tinfoil on Ed’s head, this I know.
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

The law enforcement programs are theft of our rights Jack. When you make a rule that defines marriage you steal the right for polygamists to be recognized. In this case the law enforcement stick is used to buy votes of social conservatives. If you want to call government theft, at least be consistent.

Law enforcement can be done by individuals on their own land. It is when we congregated to cities with lots of shared space that we needed police to make sure the rules are applied justly and efficiently.

It is society, held together by government, that created air conditioning. One individual alone in his hut in the forest certainly did not create it.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

You’ll be happy to know I do not think that the government should be involved in marriage at all — either in defining it or forcing others to recognize it.

No, Special Ed, law enforcement cannot be done on one’s own property. One can shoot someone if one feels threatened, but if you catch a thief on your own land you cannot make a summary judgement and lop off his hand. Neither can you keep him in a prison of your own making for a term you deem appropriate to the crime.

Even if your ridiculous assertions were true, you still cannot argue that government owns everything that everyone makes. Yet that is what you are trying to do. We get to keep only what the government allows us. So what rights do we really have?
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

Take a carpenter who is receiving unemployment. It keeps him from starving and provides him with the bridge to a new job that uses his trade skills instead of forcing them to trade down to the first unskilled job he can find thus squandering his talent. This welfare benefits both the recipient as well as the rest of us who benefit when everyone is used productively. Fraud and waste don’t just happen in government…it happens to people when society is dysfunctional and wastes human capital.
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

Oh come on Jack, what is trespass and common law self defense. The west was settled with individuals banning together to defend property and life. Cattle rustling was a hangable offense without the need of a constable. As population density increased we found police to be a better solution. Enforcement of natural law didn’t start with government.

Government doesn’t own everything. Society does, except what God gives individuals… The grey matter inside their heads.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Jack:

1. Not everyone contributes to charity or does so at a level which can cover the need. Joe Biden is a witness to that (thump, thump!!). Let us suppose that you got your wish and government stepped entirely out of the “charity” picture. Then let us suppose that personal charity did not cover the needs. Would you then “force” others to contribute to charity to meet those needs…..or would you just let the unfortunate fend for themselves?

2. Your personal world seems to be working out pretty well for you. Good for you. No bumps in the road yet. However, I would posit that not every poor man is that way because of his personal failings, lack of work ethic, etc. Sometimes shit just happens and is outside your control.

I once knew a guy a lot like you. Independent guy he was, dyed-in-the wool conservative Republican right smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression. He despised FDR and he despised the relief programs initiated by FDR’s administration. Then he lost three straight factory jobs and could not find another. He tried everything he could to feed his family, including a huge garden and hiring himself out as farm field hand whenever he could find an opening — which was not often. His family was dirt poor and hungry. His dear wife did everything she could to prepare meals out of almost nothing, refused to eat herself until the rest of the family had partaken, and sometimes wept bitter tears because she could not do more.

That man was strong and independent and proud. For a long time he refused to “demean” himself by accepting government welfare. That was just NOT something a real man did. And then he opened his eyes. He went down to a local office bearing a sign which said “Works Public Administration” or WPA, was given a shovel and pointed in the direction of a construction project. Not only did he wind up feeding his family until World War II came along and his kids found jobs in the defense industry, two of those nine kids actually were able to go to college and earn a degree — one a teacher, the other a Special Agent of the FBI and then a senior executive in a large company manufacturing security equipment. As for the man, in his old age he was still poor. When he died, he had not much more in his pocket than when he had first come to this country. So, how did he, now a widower, survive in that timeframe? His children. They took care of him because they loved him

Who was this man? My own grandfather.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

Ah, Special Ed, you complete idiot. Unemployment is (normally) an INSURANCE program run by the States. Only those who pay in to the program can get the benefits of the program. 0bama decided to change the rules in the middle of the game (essentially via an ex post facto law). Anyway, a self-employed carpenter could not get those benefits, having not paid into the program.

Since these programs are all run by the States (constitutionally, I might add), there is no place for the feral government in those programs, and it is unconstitutional to boot.

“Government doesn’t own everything. Society does….”

So how can their be laws against stealing? If a man does not own his car, society does, then why do we have laws that say that another member of “society” cannot “borrow” it when he feels he “needs” it?
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

Then I contend, Wolverine, that “society” does not value that enough to contribute to it. No, I would not FORCE people to give more. Those in poverty can ASK, and the giving is charity. If it is taken by force, even the force of a majority, it is stealing.

God said, Thou shalt not steal. There were no provisos, no caveats. He did not add, “…unless you are hungry.” He did not add, “… if your children are hungry.” He did not add, “…unless you’re going to give the stolen goods to one who needs them more.”

Neither would I “let the unfortunate fend for themselves.” I would help to the best of my ability. But that does not extend to breaking God’s Law.

And Wolverine, I’ve been out of work more times than I can count now. It took us several years to pay off the debts from our daughter’s birth, but we did not take one dime of stolen (government) money to do it.

At least your grandfather WORKED for the money the government gave him. Of course, he might not have lost those other jobs had FDR’s policies not prolonged the Depression….

“So, how did he, now a widower, survive in that timeframe? His children. They took care of him because they loved him.”

That is as it should be. That is what FAMILY is for, not what the GOVERNMENT is for.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

I think, Jack, that it takes a combination of our private charity and government programs to meet the need, especially in serious down economic times. But, you are right about my grandfather. When he came home from work at the WPA, he used to complain about how many of his co-workers seemed to lean on their shovels and actually moved only when it was time to collect their pay packets. But I don’t know what so many in that era would have done without government assistance. Even with such assistance, just the difficulties of the times seemed to leave a permanent scar on the souls of many men and woman of that era. I know it did on the soul of my grandfather, that proud, proud man. And I actually think it killed my grandmother at age 51 long before I was born. Unfortunately, it may be that 23 million unemployed plus vast underemployment in this country today may be causing similar scars to form.

But that does bring me to a point which I believe may be at the center of this argument: a failure of government to administer efficiently and protect our tax dollars from fraud. There are cases being highlighted now in which recent immigrants have discovered the benefits to be gained from those lines on the 1040 which require you to list your family exemptions. The more family you list, the less tax you pay or the bigger refund you get. In one interview, a fellow admitted that he had received a check from the IRS for about $17,000. How? Well his list of exemptions not only included the children in his immediate household but also a long list of kids , including nieces and nephews and other relatives, who were living in Mexico and had never set foot in the USA. When asked why he would do such a thing, he apparently just shrugged and replied with the rationale that “It was there for the taking.” Questions to the IRS appeared to draw a response that the problem was just too large and complex for efficient, widespread resolution. Great. And these are the guys now charged with enforcing the penalty part of Obamacare, with an infusion of 16,000 new investigators just for that program.

In the end, maybe we should all look in a mirror. Maybe the real problem is us — we who have let government through whatever political party play fast and loose and carelessly with the money we are told to fork over. I would posit that there are many, many holes in the financial dike which need to be plugged.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Hah, Jack, my first child was also paid for on the installment plan. The wife wouldn’t let me put the kid on lay-away until I got a post-military job!
Written by ACTivist about 9 months ago.

So now that carpenter can get a government job as an IRS agent making 50k a year. Growing the public sector again. Remember, the most valuable asset you put on your application is “typing”. You can’t work a gov. job without it.
Written by Ed Myers about 9 months ago.

Jack, I’ve proven that you voluntarily choose to pay taxes. I’ve given you scenarios where you can live without paying a dime in tax. For you to continue to say that taxes are theft when you choose to pay them for the benefit they provide is dishonest.

Jesus told his followers to pay their taxes. Render to Caesar…
Written by Lovisa about 9 months ago.

Slightly of topic:
About first babies / Our OB charged 175 bucks for pre- and post natal care incl.
delivery. If you could pay before delivery, he charged 150. Same for No. 2,
BUT when No. 3 arrived five years later, that didn’t work out. Why? Because the AMA
did not allow doctors to do it that way! No insurance was involved.
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

> it takes a combination of our private charity and government programs to meet the need,
> especially in serious down economic times

But WHERE does the government money come from? It must be taken from the people — either through bonds, taxation, or inflation. Either way, that money is taken out of the economy. We cannot get richer taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another — or by taking it out of one’s pocket and putting it in another’s.

The relief programs of FDR were such a drain on the economy that we could not get out of the Depression. 0bama’s programs are a similar drain on the economy — except that now we’re not even getting any work out of the people taking the handouts.

Again I say, if the people are not willing to shell out their own money for such charitable programs, then the people have decided that those programs are not worth their money. For one to think that the government knows better, one must believe that those people are incapable of making the correct decisions with their own money. As such, how can you think that they can make the correct decisions when it come to choosing who will decide for them?
Written by Carpenter out of work because of Obama about 9 months ago.

“Anyway, a self-employed carpenter could not get those benefits, having not paid into the program.”

Ain’t that the truth. If I ever start the carpentry gig back up, It’ll be strictly LLC so those contributions get made.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Well, Jack, we are on the same page in some respects. Many of the programs have to be designed much better and managed much better — value received and progress made for funds expended. In his younger days, my grandfather was a lumberjack in the North woods, had a fiery temper, and could hold his own in the constant scraps involving some very rough characters. I can imagine that he was ready to cold cock some of those “shovel leaners” in the WPA. I thought maybe we had finally arrived just a bit at a solution when work and welfare were combined during the Clinton administration in a deal between him and the Repubs in Congress. Poof! Gone just a few months ago for political reasons. We are going in reverse on this thing.

As for “taking” money from some and giving it to others for social safety net reasons? I suppose you can always gripe about it and call it an unfair and economically counterproductive exercise. But in the end, a failure to do it and do it in a wise fiscal manner carries with it the risk of civil violence by “les miserables.” Believe me, paying some taxes for a social safety net to avoid that is a small price to pay. Just ask me. I’ve been in those overseas. It ain’t funny, McGee!
Written by jack about 9 months ago.

It appears to me, Wolverine, that it is those very people who ARE living off the teat of those “social safety nets” that are rioting and committing other crimes. Perhaps if they actually had to work to survive, they would not have time to riot.
Written by Wolverine about 9 months ago.

Jack, the Third World riots I experienced came mostly because those people were not getting a slice of the economic pie in any form, work or welfare. Those moneys were going into the pockets of government officials and big business types, civilian or military depending on the government du jour. I suggest that the lack of a social safety net here might result in similar accusations against us, some admittedly by those living off the “teat” but also by a lot of people who are honest but not so fortunate. The old “Molly Maguires” come to mind.

Heh, we once had a houseboy overseas who was retired from the government health system there. A former hospital worker. His pension was the equivalent of seventeen cents a month. He liked working for Americans. We usually pay pretty well and provide things like shoes and supplies for the school kids and even medical care if needed. A regular American social safety net we were. The fellow was in tears when he had to say goodbye to Mrs. W for the last time, even though he had a good job recommendation in hand. However, we have to hope that he is still alive. That place eventually exploded into violence and civil war — for the reasons I have cited.