Why I usually stay out of the income ineqality discussions

[Epoetker]

I have two disabled children who are unable to work. I was a teacher for 30 years before I too retired with Bipolar Disorder.

Liberalism will cause bipolarity in most normal individuals. It's certainly caused it in our society, from sex to race to honestly any power relations at all. Not, I hasten to add, that the commercial oligarchs of the day haven't found ways to play along with it in ever-more-perverse ways.

My kids are autistic. They aren't going to get 'better'.

The society that liberals created during their recent control of the entire friggin' planet is autistic (and it, too, isn't going to get better by doubling down on its autistic beliefs.) Your kids should theoretically fit right in, but I'd rather you learn to encourage them toward not dying alone just because it's the fashionable thing to do. The loneliness of the explorer is far preferable to the loneliness of the hikkikomori.

My family survives because of government welfare. I don't have any pride issues about it, I simply can't afford to. I definitely believe that government has a role in providing meaningful income to the most vulnerable in our society. Now, that includes me.

My signature, how does it work?

In a kind of parody of Christianity, powerlessness constitutes a certain moral authority because it removes the possibility that you can inadvertently oppress someone else. It’s the only way to be free of White guilt, as even charity is just an expression of privilege. To the egalitarian mind, freedom really is slavery.

No possibility of pride, no possibility of humility, no great internal motivation for taking risks to avoid landing in or perpetuating a bad financial situation, and no experience of thankfulness and deference toward your betters that comes with it. (My parents, the US Army, quite a few of my teachers, my childhood friends, my co-workers, some excellent trainers, etc.) You have spoken only in terms of necessity, authority, and entitlement (mostly of others to you,) not honor, shame, risk, or reward. That's not autism, that's Asianism, at least according to my quarter-Japanese source, who most certainly did NOT stay out of this discussion:

They aren't violent and don't get in your face, so we assume they're agreeable. In reality, they are autistic or misanthropic, they just don't let it show. But they have trouble making lots of friends in school, and the males either cannot relate to girls or have a bitter hatred of them, so that they remain virgins for life. I can't think of another group who showed such autism and misanthropy, and the graph above tells me I shouldn't bother looking.

As for their abysmal levels of conscientiousness, again we look at them and see them getting good grades and decent jobs, which you can't do without hard work. But that doesn't mean they have a solid work ethic or have learned the value of hard work. Those are values that you have internalized and that allow you to work independently toward achievement -- when tempted to cheat the rules or give up when the going gets tough, you feel compelled to play fair or keep slogging through it.

East Asians have evolved the opposite system -- they have outsourced all of that behavioral monitoring to some authority, such as their Tiger Mother parents, a council of elders, a bureaucracy, an emperor, or whatever. When they feel tempted to cheat or give up, they are not very capable of correcting themselves -- that authority monitor has to swoop in, shout in their face to play fair or persevere, and they do as they're told. They can still get things done, but not on their own, only by total deference to an authority with their interests in mind.

I can state with absolute certainty that, unlike some of the much more paternalistic and well-functioning Asian statues, the US federal government and its 'free' money, in almost all of its forms, does NOT have your primary interests in mind, so playing the Asian/autistic 'necessity' wordgames on the hope that a Tassman-type will make everything bearable with the proper demotivation pills is NOT sustainable. Those here who have avoided dependence on government assistance were to a man actively trying hard to resist the call of "inevitability" whenever they heard it, and it's a sign of their health, and sensitivity, not their foolishness, certainly not their callousness (leave that to me.) Turning off or deadening the disgust reflex and accepting your lot as a slave is all sorts of things, possibly even necessary for some otherwise righteous souls who have struggled mightily against the spirit of dependency and inevitability their whole life, but evolution and innovation it ain't. At best it's the necessity of grim times of war, and is properly spoken of as such if we wish to avoid that fate for our children. I would hear of your honest life and family tragedies long before I hear of you "getting through it" by assuming that everyone has to face the same end under the same masters. It's the only way our counsel can be wiser.

[Mountain Man]

I have two disabled children who are unable to work. I was a teacher for 30 years before I too retired with Bipolar Disorder. My kids are autistic. They aren't going to get 'better'. My family survives because of government welfare. I don't have any pride issues about it, I simply can't afford to. I definitely believe that government has a role in providing meaningful income to the most vulnerable in our society. Now, that includes me.

Some people may need a leg up, but I don't believe it's the obligation of government to provide it, nor do I think the government machine is well suited for such a purpose. Government is a system for wielding power and control, so whatever assistance it provides will be only enough for you to become dependent on and thus more easily controlled by the politicians. And in order to "assist" as many people as possible, the government simply increases the tax burden on the productive members of society so that any charity-minded individuals have increasingly fewer resources with which they can help their fellow man forcing more people to turn to government which compels the government to increase the burden on taxpayers, and so on. It's an ugly cycle.

[Cow Poke]

Liberalism will cause bipolarity in most normal individuals....

I stopped reading after the first sentence.

[Bill the Cat]

I have two disabled children who are unable to work. I was a teacher for 30 years before I too retired with Bipolar Disorder. My kids are autistic. They aren't going to get 'better'. My family survives because of government welfare. I don't have any pride issues about it, I simply can't afford to. I definitely believe that government has a role in providing meaningful income to the most vulnerable in our society. Now, that includes me.

I have no issue at all with situations like yours P Man. This thread was not meant to bash government assistance. It was meant to (sort of) discuss what some are calling "fair and equitable distribution" of wealth, and why I tend to typically stay out of discussions on welfare programs. Too many times, the two sides arguing make it an exercise in broad brush painting or anecdotal dismissal of general observations. From my POV, one side seems to imply that most everyone on assistance is a lazy freeloader, and the other seems to use one or two examples of people who are "trying" as evidence that the freeloaders are a rare sideshow, and not indicative of the circle of dependency that the government has incentivized by giving out what I call "easy money". Having been on the side of "I'm honestly trying" for over a decade, and now being fairly close to being on the side of "I have much to be able to bless others as I see fit", I can see that there is a story for every situation, and making broad brush arguments isn't working to solve any problem.

[Bill the Cat]

I only tried to check into "government assistance" ONE TIME when my wife and I were young, with a small child. We were told we would be denied because we owned two cars. One of them was an old VW station wagon, barely running, and the other was an old Ford Fairlane with a blown engine, and no money to fix it. That didn't matter - it eliminated us from even APPLYING for assistance. We made it anyway.

However, I have to admit, that kinda "hardened" my beliefs on "government assistance", because I saw so much abuse -- even a lady coming into the shoe repair shop where I was getting a pair of shoes re-soled, and this lady all dressed to the nines was bragging that she had more food stamps than she could ever use, and she was waving them around asking if anybody needed them.

In my Police work, too, I saw lots of abuses, where kids were going barefoot and barely clothed, but Daddy came home with 2 12 packs of Bud.

It's easy to get jaded when you see abuses all around, and you yourself can't get help. But, again --- we made it.

As I got older, I saw many legitimate needs, and even helped people apply for whatever government programs would assist them. I have been involved in Habitat for Humanity for years, and have learned about community programs, grants, assistance, etc to help some of the people to whom we minister.

SO..... I still deeply resent the cheats and abuses of the system, but I am well aware, and not the least bit resentful of, the fact that there are people who simply need help because they are, through no fault of their own, in deep hurt.

-1that-license-plate-1332244752.jpg

[Jedidiah]

Some people may need a leg up, but I don't believe it's the obligation of government to provide it, nor do I think the government machine is well suited for such a purpose. Government is a system for wielding power and control, so whatever assistance it provides will be only enough for you to become dependent on and thus more easily controlled by the politicians. And in order to "assist" as many people as possible, the government simply increases the tax burden on the productive members of society so that any charity-minded individuals have increasingly fewer resources with which they can help their fellow man forcing more people to turn to government which compels the government to increase the burden on taxpayers, and so on. It's an ugly cycle.

While I agree that it is not ideally the governments obligation, or even desired role, to provide such assistance. Once upon a time Churches did a lot of that, but they have been pretty much driven out of that area. In the messed up culture we find ourselves in today in the US, it is indeed their obligation - they have made it so.

[Truthseeker]

I have no issue at all with situations like yours P Man. This thread was not meant to bash government assistance. It was meant to (sort of) discuss what some are calling "fair and equitable distribution" of wealth, and why I tend to typically stay out of discussions on welfare programs. Too many times, the two sides arguing make it an exercise in broad brush painting or anecdotal dismissal of general observations. From my POV, one side seems to imply that most everyone on assistance is a lazy freeloader, and the other seems to use one or two examples of people who are "trying" as evidence that the freeloaders are a rare sideshow, and not indicative of the circle of dependency that the government has incentivized by giving out what I call "easy money". Having been on the side of "I'm honestly trying" for over a decade, and now being fairly close to being on the side of "I have much to be able to bless others as I see fit", I can see that there is a story for every situation, and making broad brush arguments isn't working to solve any problem.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that this post brought us closer to a good answer to the question, "Which is the better way, volunteer (no government) aid or government aid?" Simply deploring people bashing government welfare--how does that help us answer that question?

I am not inclined to start a thread to answer that question, but I think I will subscribe to it if someone else starts it. Here's a thought anyway. People think that the government can provide more aid--well to be more accurate, the world with the government providing aid is better than the world with the government providing NO aid. Really!? How does anyone know?

[jordanriver]

my brother in law and family getting kicked out of their apartment.

the owner died and the kids are selling it, everybody has to get out.

This comes from not having control of your destiny,

...votever dot mins...

Can every American be independent of every other American and have complete autonomy and control over their lives.

or will there be losers no matter how hard they try....

[pancreasman]

Well, hold the front page of 'Nature'. Liberalism causes Bipolar Disorder. I tried to report this post for personal offensiveness but something appears to be wrong with link to do that. I therefore ask a moderator to consider this post (Epoetker's) in this light.

Bill, I know you meant no harm by your OP. I'm glad you brought the topic up.

I suppose my point is that it is a little easy to focus on the abuse of welfare and in a rhetorical flourish, pronounce all welfare BAD because of it. My particular situation indicates, as almost all of you accept (except for that crazy Tweb uncle) that there are legitimate reasons for some people to have no other recourse than long term welfare. In my country, Oz, it's very difficult to claim Disability Welfare, with multiple doctors' letters and a whole slew of very complex paperwork to qualify, plus constant monitoring. Similarly to maintain unemployment welfare. I am worried, and know of several cases, where the process is so difficult that deserving people fail at it and become homeless as a result. The present conservative government is seeking once again to make it even harder. The statistical reality seems to be that rorting the system seems very difficult and only a very small proportion. Nevertheless the easy catchcry of 'going after the lazy bums' gets a fair amount of traction.

I think I'm seeing here that many of you would like to revert to the 'good old days' of churches being the gatekeepers and custodians of welfare. I suggest that is unworkable. If I have to 'beg' from various churches my already tender self regard would plummet further. How can a church guarantee a long term constant welfare payment to those who need it? How well equipped is a church to evaluate cases of need with health, psychological and social elements? Would a church be more efficient at sorting out the cheats from the deserving?

Once again I come back to my hobby horse of the civil society. We live in a society. We have mutual obligations to all its members. The central government is at least supposed to be representative of all its citizens. It is the body best equipped to employ experts and monitor welfare to all people. I'd much rather be assessed by the social workers and psychologists employed by my government's welfare agency, with clear legislated lines of appeal, than by evaluated by the butcher who happens to be an elder in his church who believes autism is a simple case of demon possession.

[KingsGambit]

pancreasman (and anybody else who uses the report feature): There's a bit of a bug so that if you report a post, there's no "landing screen", so it'll look like it's loading forever, but the report does come through to the moderating staff.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm sorry, but I don't see that this post brought us closer to a good answer to the question, "Which is the better way, volunteer (no government) aid or government aid?"

I have no problem with Government aid where it is needed. But the government has no business taking from me to give you an equal amount. Wealth redistribution is not the same as charity or necessary public assistance. This wrong conflation is why I originally said I don't like this sort of discussion.

Simply deploring people bashing government welfare--how does that help us answer that question?

Why would I bash anyone for doing something I did myself? That's hypocrisy.

[Adrift]

I have no problem with Government aid where it is needed. But the government has no business taking from me to give you an equal amount. Wealth redistribution is not the same as charity or necessary public assistance. This wrong conflation is why I originally said I don't like this sort of discussion.



Why would I bash anyone for doing something I did myself? That's hypocrisy.

Who here is asking for wealth distribution so that the government takes away from you an equal amount to share/give to the poor? It seems to me that we're all in agreement that it is the civil thing (if not the Christian thing), to meet the needs of those in our communities who are in circumstances where they cannot meed their own needs. I think as Christians (myself included) that we all too often don't do our due diligence in supplying even the basic needs of our communities voluntarily.

Off the record, I think New Monastic collectives who are attempting to get right there in the dirt with their local communities to fulfill needs as best they can are doing a bang up job fulfilling Christ's commands to help the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned. Its not for everyone, but its certainly noble, and a whole lot more than I'm doing (I'm ashamed to say). I think there are positive ramifications to threads like these Bill. Makes me want to get off my butt and make a difference.

[Truthseeker]

I have no problem with Government aid where it is needed. But the government has no business taking from me to give you an equal amount. Wealth redistribution is not the same as charity or necessary public assistance. This wrong conflation is why I originally said I don't like this sort of discussion.

Afaics, you need to think things through. What resources the government have to work with has to originate from the people. But first let me tell you how I am going to interpret "But the government has no business taking from me to give you an equal amount." I guess you mean . . . um . . . the government should not take anything from impoverished people but it can take from well-to-do households.

It would be best for the people to voluntarily donate time and other resources to the government. No coercion or chicanery. For example, Obama would not say you can keep your policy if you like it. That's not the case today that what the government get is for the most part voluntarily given by the people. Most people, I think, pay taxes and other government "obligations," such as users' fees for parks, because they otherwise would go to jail or have their financial accounts garnished. So, shall we assume that the greater part of the government's revenues have been forcibly taken from the people? As for the vast sums of money that the federal government had borrowed and have, I very much doubt that the people by themselves would borrow anywhere near that much. The economy is doing OK for the most part, even though the ultra wealthy have increased their net worth colossally. But I fear that in the future our creditors will refuse more and more to let the federal government borrow from them anymore.

I have more to say, but maybe you have something to say now.

[Bill the Cat]

Afaics, you need to think things through.

I have. A great deal.

What resources the government have to work with has to originate from the people.

I know that.

But first let me tell you how I am going to interpret "But the government has no business taking from me to give you an equal amount." I guess you mean . . . um . . . the government should not take anything from impoverished people but it can take from well-to-do households.

No. That's not what I mean. I mean that government should not take 50% of my paycheck to give to someone who doesn't work just so mine and their income is "equal". That's been my point all along. Socialism and "equitable redistribution of wealth" simply don't solve the real problem. Neither does eliminating social programs for those who need. And neither does unlimited handouts to anyone who asks.

It would be best for the people to voluntarily donate time and other resources to the government. No coercion or chicanery. For example, Obama would not say you can keep your policy if you like it. That's not the case today that what the government get is for the most part voluntarily given by the people. Most people, I think, pay taxes and other government "obligations," such as users' fees for parks, because they otherwise would go to jail or have their financial accounts garnished. So, shall we assume that the greater part of the government's revenues have been forcibly taken from the people? As for the vast sums of money that the federal government had borrowed and have, I very much doubt that the people by themselves would borrow anywhere near that much. The economy is doing OK for the most part, even though the ultra wealthy have increased their net worth colossally. But I fear that in the future our creditors will refuse more and more to let the federal government borrow from them anymore.

This isn't even remotely what this thread is about. It's exactly why I stay out of these discussions though.

[Bill the Cat]

Who here is asking for wealth distribution so that the government takes away from you an equal amount to share/give to the poor?

Socialists.

Source: http://www.intelligenteconomist.com/equitable-distribution-of-income/?hvid=6fMY3g

A good short run solution would be a progressive tax system with transfer payments, such as subsidies, unemployment benefits and disability benefits. By taxing higher income groups more than lower-income groups, the income can be redistributed from the rich to the poor.

© Copyright Original Source

It seems to me that we're all in agreement that it is the civil thing (if not the Christian thing), to meet the needs of those in our communities who are in circumstances where they cannot meet their own needs.

I would not agree in every circumstance. That's the sort of broad brush I am referring to.

I think as Christians (myself included) that we all too often don't do our due diligence in supplying even the basic needs of our communities voluntarily.

Agreed.

Off the record, I think New Monastic collectives who are attempting to get right there in the dirt with their local communities to fulfill needs as best they can are doing a bang up job fulfilling Christ's commands to help the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned. Its not for everyone, but its certainly noble, and a whole lot more than I'm doing (I'm ashamed to say). I think there are positive ramifications to threads like these Bill. Makes me want to get off my butt and make a difference.

I simply wanted to make a statement that I don't like these discussions because of all of the over-generalizations. And I think I've just about said all I need to say.