Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Roger R. on February 25, 2010 at 3:48pm

In this thread, I've posted against social financial assistance: unemployment, Social Security and Medicare.

...but a part of me keeps telling me to be more compassionate to others.

That is my dilemma - my compassionate side. Thanks for setting me on the right track and helping me overcome compassion for others. Clearly I need help in this area of my life from time, to time.


.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on February 25, 2010 at 5:18pm

Social programs are sold because we are a compassionate people. That is not a fault.

What is the fault is that they are sold without regards to the impact. The wealth that provides someone with compassion came from somewhere. What was the impact to the person from whom it was taken? Is there someone who, now poorer because of tax burden, skipped a medical exam, resulting in their death when cancer wasn't detected early enough. That's likely, but the plight of the people from whom wealth is taken is never mentioned nor is it tracked. So compassion may also be doing harm and we never know about it.

Or, that money is taken from the pool of capital that would have created wealth for future generations. So in order to be compassionate we are stealing wealth from those who are not yet born. Is that compassion? Is that moral?

The true answer is that it is very tough to tell if such acts are truly compassionate or not. It is not a straightforward calculation, and it would be nice if both sides of the story were presented.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Robinson on February 25, 2010 at 6:00pm

And where is the "compassion" in leaving my wife and family strapped in debt for an expensive operation that I could not otherwise afford and would not really benefit anyone in the long run?

. . . . Liberalism is compassionate, Conservatism is not . . . . Yeah, yeah! Here we go again. Sorry, but I'm still not buying these arguing points. I'm just not drinking that purple kool-aid! Anyone else?!



.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on February 25, 2010 at 6:42pm

Ronald Reagan gave a radio address in the 60's regarding the aims of statists in our government attempting to get a "foot in the door" through socialized medicine. The trigger is always compassion. It is the carrot dangled in front of the donkey. Unfortunately, the carrot is poisonous.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger R. on February 25, 2010 at 8:23pm

Great post Mike. : )

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Robinson on February 25, 2010 at 5:48pm

From what I have read from you, I sincerely doubt "compassion" is one of your "faults."


. . . . Liberalism is compassionate, Conservatism is mean spirited (straight from the ol' Liberal Progressive handbook)! Yada yada yada . . . I've heard this script before, and I'm still not impressed by its tainted logic.


Pardon me while I gag over the rank smell of Liberalism in the air . . . . there, back to Conservative sanity . . . . moving on . . . .


.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on February 25, 2010 at 8:14pm

Wealth transfer to meet our perceived need for passion is very corrosive of society.
1. It sets one class of citizens against another.
2. It takes motivation from people "do not make them comfortable in their poverty" (paraphrased Franklin)
3. It reduces growth, which robs future generations of wealth to make some who struggle comfortable now.
4. Free markets depend upon all 3 principles of Adam Smith: people meet their needs, specialize, and trade. If the needs are satisfied without contributing to society, why contribute?
5. It also assumes that people are too selfish or too stupid to help someone in need of help and so the government must do it. Therefore an opportunity for enrichment between the two parties is missed.
6. The needs of communities are diverse and there is no way that a federal program can be efficient delivering to the diverse needs of this segment of society.
7. There is significant overhead to collect the taxes, doll them out to the "needy", and then monitor the programs. This doesn't work well because there is so much fraud in these programs. Remove the fraud by getting the government out of it.
If we had TRUE compassion we would allow individuals, communities, and faith-based organizations to take care of this.
Conservatism is compassionate. Liberalism is enslavement. That's the truth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Robinson on February 25, 2010 at 10:34pm

Good one, Mike! But I think some people here still aren't getting the message . . . . . and their sudden silence is deafening! :)

Permalink Reply by American Man on February 26, 2010 at 9:13pm

Words of wisdom are like pearls..
Be carefull how you dispense with them...

Permalink Reply by American Man on February 23, 2010 at 6:28pm

Socialism,conservatives,progressive,republican,democrat,..........are these not mere words. I think intent is what is important. Bill Gates*-good intent. Bernie Madoff- bad intent. The free market doe's, from time to time step up.* Good people always step up.. Thats how some of us tithe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger R. on February 24, 2010 at 5:14pm

I understand that some give 10% of their income to help those in need. However, is this enough money to help ALL Americans in need?

Are we as a nation reliant on some forms of "socialism" or re-distribution of wealth, to help those who are in need of financial help? (Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, and those without Health Insurance who need Health Insurance)

If so, let's just be honest about it and move forward.


.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on February 24, 2010 at 5:31pm

Intent is a mere word.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page