Posted on 07/11/2012 1:20:10 PM PDT by DannyTN
...The chart below compares average social spending with adjusted per capita GDP growth since 2000. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Think of the gleanings the Bible says should be left in the fields for the poor.
When government taxes too much those gleanings go to it and the poor suffer.
For their own good?
Government will take better care of them with the gleanings- despite what’s in scripture?
No, taxes don’t help the poor in any way.
Or more exactly, "safety chains", wrapped tightly around our necks and securely locked in place.
For one early recipient of Social Security, the total contribution was about twenty-five dollars and she drew out almost twenty-five THOUSAND dollars. Her hammock was supplied by contributors such as myself, contributing to the system in the 1970s.
Now, I am collecting benefits, with a likelihood that this will be among the worst "investments" that I have ever made. Young wage earners today are contributing for my benefit and have little chance whatever of deriving significant benefits themselves.
We have an entire generation of middle-aged wage earners who have saved almost NOTHING for retirement, convinced by liberals that Social Security would take care of them. These people bought into the nonsense and will pay the highest price for doing so.
None of the so-called "safety nets" implemented by government would exist without the use of government FORCE. Nobody would willingly contribute to Social Security without the law to force them to do so.
Obamacare is an exercise in FORCING people to buy health "insurance" who would not otherwise willingly buy it. This mandate is not government recognition that such a person might need health coverage, but is an essential part of paying for the health needs of OTHERS, including those whose pre-existing conditions would make them uninsurable.
I agree. I'm confident it's well above 30% of our tax dollars.
Using the 2010 budget (link), we see
~16% for unemployment
~13% for medicare
~8% for Medicaid
~2% on Health and Human Services
~1% for Housing and Urban Development... there's 40% right there... and if you think that less than 75% of those budgets go to the poor, you're sadly mistaken.
(I left out the ~19% for Social Security, although we all know that this fund is going to weed out the non-poor in the near future.)
You do not understand the very nature of government. By design they cannot over time be efficient or careful with our money.
Your statement seems to indicate that you have more faith and trust in government programs than in private charities. You spent most of your time justifying government activism.
A free people will always provide for others truly in need. I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man to freely help others. You seem to have the most faith in government to intervene. No one can deny that government programs have encouraged millions of able bodied people to become non-productive slaves to taxpayer extracted handouts.
Look at your positions, you’re a liberal. Your beliefs are the very reason America is in such trouble.
Do you have no knowledge of the horrible corruption of the human spirit that welfare has let loose on this country? Don’t you know why there are so many illegitimate children and broken families?
Don’t you understand that welfare buys votes?
The whole point of being a conservative is to know these things and to be wise about unintended consequences.
It's not been an issue in the "last few decades" but I read somewhere that it was an issue when Medicare/Medicaid was originally being discussed. Think pre-60's.
It was also an issue in Colonial America at the state level. State judges spend a lot of their time forcing communities to carry their fair share of the indigent care. I read that researching the history of poor laws in America.
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. II Corinthians 9:7 NIV
Here is the King James Version if you prefer:
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
God never intended for us to be forced do His work to help the poor or even give to Him out of compulsion. And what about those who don’t share Christian beliefs? You think they should be forced to pay taxes to take care of the poor.
It sounds like you do. It sounds like you believe Christians should force government to tax people to do God’s work and help the poor which is the exact opposite of what God loves. Our job here is not to force people to help the poor. That is the job the Lord gave us as Christians to do.
God wants us as Christians to give. We as Christians individually and as churches of the body of Christ, need to give of what God has blessed us to help the poor. The idea that we should force people through government taxation to help the poor is anti-Christ because it goes against God’s will for us.
And I defy you to make the case Biblical, historically, practically, that the safety net is something the Federal government can or SHOULD be doing. This is a matter for States and localities ALONE to handle.
If you allow the Federal government to usurp this role it GUARANTEES disaster. They cannot do the job.
I disagree. This is an example of all three that you cited (lies, damnable lies, statistics.) Statistics, itself, is solid. The interpretation of statistics, however, is dependent on one's beliefs.
It's the beliefs that lead us astray. Not the statistics.
Dead right.
This does not exhibit a trend that supports the statement. Not when there are so many high spenders that do so poorly and so many low spenders that do well.
Bravo Sierra.
IBD needs to be read carefully and objectively. Do not mistake it with balanced reporting or conservative reporting. It has an agenda and it does not seem to be one of mine.
What would these countries do if they had to divert spending to their own national security?
-PJ
The chart ostensibly shows GDP/capita growth since 2000. I doesn’t say when the growth or lack of it occurred. From 2000 to 2007 the world lived in an economic fairy land.
It probably wouldn’t make a difference, but a better x-axis would be growth since 2007. Sort of a stress-test for socialism.
In all, the chart doesn’t bust any myths. There clearly are other factors that allow welfare states to survive.
But then again, it’s not a matter of survival, it’s a matter of freedom. A point lost in the argument.
What percentage is the EIC Christmas?
That nearing 50 percent of the population get to enjoy from what I actually earned.
“I do believe their is scriptural authority for individuals, churches and yes Governments to care for the poor”
I disagree, in part.
Why?
I do not see “the society” and the government as the same or as having the same obligations. Socialism and Fascism and every form of Marxism sees government and society as mutually interchangeable, as far as what they are and as far as what our responsibilities are.
The founders believed that they were giving us a Constitution with a system - a limited government - from which the bounties from our LIBERTIES - our freedoms and our free associations and private works - would flow.
Not that the government would create or insure them.
Lastly, I do not find Yeshua ever calling for his followers to go demand that they be given the power of Caesar’s sword - secular government - so they could use it to extract what wealth they chose from their neighbors to fulfill His call that we should be charitable to the poor.
Until the age of Constantine, the Christians understood this and lived accordingly.
Again, the distinction is between what we are called to do, as a society, as opposed to placing what we are called to do in the hands of government to be produced by it’s power.
The government takes authority of nothing unless it becomes it’s master.
Does this mean there is no role for government in charity?
No.
It means it’s role must be limited, and we must be very circumspect about how far and how deep it’s power is placed in any purpose we give it. It also means we as a society put our expectations of the free and private works of our society above and ahead of expectations of government in all things. These things we do to keep government the servant not the master.
Yeshua’s final path near this question found Satan offering Yeshua the keys to the kingdoms of this world - secular power. Yeshua answered that His kingdom was not of this world; meaning His kingdom was not of the world systems of secular power and government.
How did Yeshua say we would finally shine as His?
Because the laws of our secular government would reflect and, with it’s power enforce, His laws and thinking on all?
No.
He said instead that His law would be written in our hearts.
I would ask all Jewish and Christian religious orders to quit questioning what charitable works government is or is not doing, and instead ask themselves why any of their own active members are out of work, and what THEY are doing about it.
There are only two religious denominations in the U.S. - besides sects like the Amish - where unemployment is rare or nonexistent. It’s a perplexing fact in as much as unemployment is not rare in many Christian and Jewish denominations, but the two who seem to have largely solved this problem are considered cults by all the others.
I think many Christians and Jews need to get their heads out of Marxist and Progressive notions, on charity, and start removing the log from their own eyes. Why is their religious calling kept out of what they try to do in their own work and in the work they are responsible for. Why do they try to fulfill all of their own responsibility “to give”, by deflecting it, by deflecting their own power to the power of government to take.
When people say “I support” this or that government program because “i believe I should give” to xyz charitable cause, they have come to believe a delusion. The achievement is not a giving, it is a taking. In truth they are not deciding to “give”. They have decided that they and at least 51 out of 100 of their fellow citizens have decided how much will be taken from the other 49 out of one hundred, to achieve a benevolence chosen by the 51. It is a taking, not a giving.
The chart is deceptive for many reasons.
One is the selective time frame they chose - only since the year 2000.
Regardless, the chart does not say what they want it to.
GDP growth averaged not much different for Germany during the period than it did for the U.S., while social spending by Germany was much higher. And GDP growth was less than the U.S. in France, Belgium, the U.K. and Canada, while social spending is higher in all of them.
If the chart says anything at all it says that social spending is no guarantor or barometer of GDP growth.
I really would like original sources for such claims. Did you get this from some leftist documentation?
Again, please provide original sources to the claim, "a lot of their time forcing communities." I will make it a point to seek and verify those sources.
What goes for welfare programs/spending today could hardly be imagined for colonial times through to the late 1880s.
Governments at ALL levels are consuming our hard-earned wealth propelling our Republic into a socialist nightmare. Yet, you spend most of your time justifying activist government. Not at all very conservative if you ask me.
The bottom line of the reality we face is the the government is in the process of destroying our Republic and our way of life -- not very charitable if you ask me.
The “poorest” person in this country has it better than the vast majority of Haitians.
“So when a blind man begs at the temple gate, or an orphan begs, is that coveting and idolatry?”
You win the cheap straw-man award this week.
The missing component in the public discussion about government involvement in social spending is that we refuse to define who deserves help because they otherwise cannot sustain life and who is expected to carry their own weight. We have also allowed government to replace charity and in the process we have destroyed property rights and allowed too many people to think they have a right to enslave others so they may live at their expense.
As a result today, where we used to have 1 in every 35 workers on disability, we have 1 in 15.
Article:
6 charts that show the Welfare State run amok
The original purpose of Medicaid was to provide improved healthcare access for poor people, while not turning the safety net into a trap. Under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Medicaid will be greatly exapnded beyond what Congress originally intended.
In fact, as these charts show, it has already expanded beyond what Congress surely originally envisioned and, in the process, has created a terrible fiscal problem for the United States. (These charts and graphics come from a briefing today here at AEI, conducted by Gary Alexander, secretary of public welfare for Pennsylvania.)
A few scary factoids:
– In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
– The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
– There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
– There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance....
[6 charts]
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/6-charts-that-show-the-welfare-state-run-amok/
Safety nets are not socialism, and I didn't say anything about socialism. Socialism does fail. We have a capitalistic society that has had some safety nets in place such as bankruptcy since the beginning of the country. And we've done okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
