Posted on 08/21/2005 10:29:42 AM PDT by Capitalism2003
BEST OF JIM COOK
August 16, 2005
HELPING TILL IT HURTS
By subsidizing the underclass we increase the risk of crime to ourselves and our families. The religious thinker Swedenburg wrote, "He who assists a poor or needy villain does evil to his neighbor... for through the assistance which he renders he .... supplies him with the means of doing evil to others." In other words, charity to bad people hurts good people.
How much government welfare goes to support villains? What percentage of support payments go to encourage delinquent parents to have children that will grow into villains? We don’t know the exact amount, but everyday experience indicates that it’s high. Certainly high enough to accuse the government of wrecking the lives of innocent citizens who suffer the consequences of rampant crime and social disorder. Furthermore, we have not begun to see a fraction of the problems that giving money to villains unleashes. That will come.
Subsidies that encourage unwed mothers mean that the least successful and most dysfunctional members of society have the highest birth rate. This intractable problem threatens order and promises to destabilize the future like nothing else. Our culture is being corrupted by eliminating the requirement to make one’s own way in life. The sorry consequences of subsidies qualify as a "danger from within" that Lincoln warned would be the one thing that could cause America to fail.
Why does the government make such blunders and do more damage with its well-meaning programs than it cures? For one thing, they practice liberal social policies. Liberalism is Americanized socialism. Every step towards socialism does damage to society. But that’s not the only reason that governments so often make a mess of what they do. For a number of reasons governments are incompetent. That’s not very reassuring, because they are in charge of the money, the banking system and the retirement and financial security of most of the people. To suggest that they will likely mismanage all of this in the worst possible way has profound implications for all of us.
In business there is profit or loss to determine success or failure. Government has no similar yardstick to measure results. They have no objective means of economic calculation to determine the worth of their activities. There’s no bottom line. That means there is no incentive for cost cutting or sound financial management in government. Quite the opposite, bureaucrats feel it’s necessary to increase budgets and spend more.
Government has far more rules and regulations than private concerns because the law imposes restrictions on government. There is little room for discretion or independent thinking. Rigid and inflexible government policies destroy innovation and creativity. It’s hard to get anything done, and frustrating delays are endemic to the system.
Government employees move up the ladder through educational credentials rather than merit. People are given jobs and promotions based on seniority, race and gender rather than ability or talent. Such a system often overlooks the deserving and rewards the incompetent. There is no payoff for achievement. Politicians often promise to make government more efficient but it’s a vain hope. These bureaucratic organizations that control so much of our lives are all too often dangerously incompetent. If you’re relying on the government for your happiness or prosperity, you stand to be disappointed. Big government inevitably leads to failure.
Ronald Reagan would be very disappointed with what we are seeing in the GOP today.
Debt to the penny: 08/18/2005 $7,925,741,499,921.91 http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Most conservatives make an exception for the biggest big government program of all, war. Why expect that when we get into combat formerly inept bureaucrats will become efficient? Maybe contracting out more of our defense efforts than we currently do would give us a better defense at a lower cost.
I didn't leave the Republican party, The Republican party left me.
Which US GOP Senators are going to Crawford?
They have the time off work and can well afford to buy airline tickets.
Which GOP Governors will be in attendance?
The next President of the United States will be there
and I'll vote for him or her
because they supported our troops when they need it the most.
President Bush's non-Defense and Homeland Security budget is also the biggest ever, and he has not vetoed a single spending bill.
I am the center of my universe, too. Everyone should get back in line with my ideas, if you ask me.
When we are called to exalt, or make excuses for the "needy villan" -- to which the pop-psyche "profession" has taught contemporary man - then Houston, we have a problem.
What ever happened to correct CAPITALIZATION OF WORDS?
That "reminds" me of the "old" Chris Farley routine "on" Saturnday Night Live where he "used" his fingers to indicate quotes around "words" but always used them "wrong".
If someone expects me to trudge down to the polls and vote for them, they ought to give me a reason.
Being ever so miniscully less evil than Hellary is not enough.
Would you have preferred to have Kerry leading this war?
Consider what happened to Cambodia and South Vietnam when we went in, then pulled out without setting in place a stable government. Over 3 Million civilians were slaughtered. 3 Million .... that is half of the Holocost.
Contrast this to what happened in Japan and German when we pulled out. We go in, we dismantle an evil goverment, and replace it with a Democratic and STABLE goverment; or else we'll be going back in there to fight again in just a few years.
Forced charity is a contradiction in terms.
Bush may be in "charge", but he has handlers.
I'm puzzled that you would rank Elder Bush and Nixon with Ronald Reagan. Elder Bush spoke of the "New World Order" coming to pass and Nixon was a Rockefeller puppet.
No kidding. Real conservatives ought to notice that politicians are only paying them lip service.
Reagan's successes were a result of the fact that the country had to get its economy, budgets, and money supply under control. We had to come to terms with the problems brought out by the 1960s and 1970s.
We'll probably see another "day of reckoning" like that soon, but our situation now is reminiscent of the Eisenhower-Kennedy years four or five decades ago. On the one hand, being involved in a global struggle brings greater respect for government and acceptance of social programs. On the other hand, people think a degree of fiscal and moral laxity is justified and excused by our victory in the Cold War and success in the global economy.
Truer words were never spoken.
I don't care how good the intentions, government has NO lawful authority to take one person's hard earned money and distribute it to others that are too lazy/shiftless/stupid to earn their own.
Leave charitable works to the charities.
Nelson nearly snuck in as president after Agnew and Nixon were run out of town, all he needed was for someone to eliminate Ford. Golly what a coincidence, someone did try to bump off Ford two or three times. One coincidence after another.
Rockefeller ruined the GOP. Me thinks he and the spooks had a hand in Reagan's assassination attempt too.
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.