|
Post by Entimos on May 24, 2017 13:36:13 GMT -7
How often have we heard, “you cannot legislate morality,” but out of the next breath a person will argue it is societies responsibility to take care of the poor and elderly.....When a person argues government must force (via taxation) individuals to be good, there is a presumption people are not good. This is basic premise of liberal thinking. In their philosophy one role of government is to force people to be good and to care about their fellow human being. On the other hand, I believe individuals are basically good and they have a basic desire to help their fellow human.
One could argue that there is no net impact to our economy by government being inefficient in the administration of entitlements. That means, that instead of the “poor” or “needy” receiving funds government bureaucrats receive these funds in the form of salary and other administration costs. The argument is that the economy is a closed system, so there is no net loss to the economy. Clearly it is not the objective of a society to feed and clothe government bureaucrats. If 70% of all money intended for the poor and needy ends up as administrative costs, then government is not meeting their objective and not being effective. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates that every dollar of taxes raised by the federal government costs the economy 18 cents. So a $1 tax by the government intended for the poor and needy, reduces GDP by 18 cents. Out of $1 spent on government entitlement programs, 70 cents is on administration. The true net loss to our economy is 88 cents (18 + 70) for every $1 spent.
This means out of every dollar the government spends on entitlement programs only 12 cents (or 12%) actually benefits anyone. In other words 88% is either wasted or is administration costs. www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Private+Charity+versus+Government+Entitlements+David+Longstreet
What conservatives and Christians object to is the unaccountable, immoral, horribly inefficient and corrupt wealth redistribution by the government; we actually help the poor with private giving at higher rates than liberals or secular folks. To portray such folks as somehow hating the poor for wanting a corrupt government to steal less from us is just not accurate.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 24, 2017 16:06:31 GMT -7
Christians cannot solve poverty.
Let's take this area for example. Churches in the area largely take clothing donations but don't help with finances. I would lose my home if programs were cut and many elderly would do the same. Sorry, that's not compassion.
Instead people should be demanding that the government gets a grip on costs without kicking people out of their home. The people should also demand the we have universal health care since it is supported by a large portion of Americans. Waste is the result of a lack of accountability, not the fault of the poor, disabled or elderly.
The right likes to go on about taxes. Guess what? I believe taxes are robbery myself. But, in a society that is not based on real Capitalist ideas, there is no way things are based on what people can pay as long as there is credit. Many, many Americans live outside their means because they have plastic. This raises prices because what people can pay can be based on fake numbers.
How much would a house be today if there were no banks to finance said house? How much would medical be today if there wasn't insurance to pay and costs had to come out of the pocket? How much would college be if there was no loans? How much would food be if there was no food stamps and credit cards? That's the problem. Our society costs are all based on fake numbers. And most Americans have less then 500 dollars in savings? If that is the case that means most Americans cannot afford to drive, but oh credit....
The system is a mess but the only way many people survive is through government programs. Sad reality and not the way it should be, but it is. As long as that is true, when you vote against these programs you are voting to create homeless people, voting to kill people, voting to starve people all while at the same time claiming to care but not showing you care. It really doesn't matter how much churches donate if that donated money cannot solve all the problems and it can't.
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on May 24, 2017 16:45:09 GMT -7
and if we had single payer with no means testing to have to verify administrative overhead would go way way down!!!
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 24, 2017 17:11:07 GMT -7
and if we had single payer with no means testing to have to verify administrative overhead would go way way down!!! Yep. your right. I was diagnosed with my issues at the age of 7. They review me every year now in my 40s wondering if I'm cured. The chances of me being cured are slim but yet they waste money every 3 years making me get checked out. Waste of money for sure. And that happens on a grand scale? Waste.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 25, 2017 5:04:05 GMT -7
and if we had single payer with no means testing to have to verify administrative overhead would go way way down!!! Yep. your right. I was diagnosed with my issues at the age of 7. They review me every year now in my 40s wondering if I'm cured. The chances of me being cured are slim but yet they waste money every 3 years making me get checked out. Waste of money for sure. And that happens on a grand scale? Waste. You just supported exactly what I have been saying. We need to reduce SS by X% to help balance the budget. Instead of cutting aid to those that need it, cut the waste. It's the government bureaucrats that make the cuts painful, not the Christians, not the conservatives, not even the liberals. It's the self serving bureaucrats.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 25, 2017 5:20:35 GMT -7
Yep. your right. I was diagnosed with my issues at the age of 7. They review me every year now in my 40s wondering if I'm cured. The chances of me being cured are slim but yet they waste money every 3 years making me get checked out. Waste of money for sure. And that happens on a grand scale? Waste. You just supported exactly what I have been saying. We need to reduce SS by X% to help balance the budget. Instead of cutting aid to those that need it, cut the waste. It's the government bureaucrats that make the cuts painful, not the Christians, not the conservatives, not even the liberals. It's the self serving bureaucrats. And you have been right IF it is not done with a broad brush. Sadly our government has a horrible habit of throwing everyone in a box and tying with a nice little bow and calling it day.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 31, 2017 7:44:12 GMT -7
You just supported exactly what I have been saying. We need to reduce SS by X% to help balance the budget. Instead of cutting aid to those that need it, cut the waste. It's the government bureaucrats that make the cuts painful, not the Christians, not the conservatives, not even the liberals. It's the self serving bureaucrats. Exactly! Well said, hoofie. JD, I disagree that single payer would reduce the 70% administrative costs that we see in government programs today. Federal programs have always been bloated due to waste and fraud and subject to the whims of the politicians and bureaucrats currently in charge. At the very least, we could target a 10% reduction in the 70% consumed by administrative costs across the board while mandating that no benefits to the end user can be reduced or changed. Imagine what we could do if 10% of the administrative costs actually made it to the poor and needy? What if it was 20 or 30%? What could we do if we mandated that only 50% of an agency's funds could be used for the bureaucracy. Better yet, give people the ability to save for their own basic health care and purchase catastrophic care insurance; all government needs to do is protect those programs against the electoral fads of the politicians. Apply such programs to future generations gradually while taking care of those who had no opportunity to participate.
|
|