A new kind of social political thinking

[Traveler]

Two quick things to remember:

The same people are not always the poor people. Generally poverty seems to be eliminated fairly quickly (one, two or three generations). At the time they receive welfare they are not paying taxes, but rest assured some of their progenitors have and posterity will.

The poor and middle class provide the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors.

As near as I can determine there are 4 kinds or types of poor.

1. Substance abusers. These are addicts that have dropped out of economic society because of their addiction.

2. Handicap. These are individuals with mental or physical handicaps that prevent them from economic viability.

3. What I call hobos. These are individuals that have decided (for what-ever reason) to drop out of the economic treadmill. They could earn money to support themselves but do not desire to do so.

4. Individuals and families with such poor skills that they exist at the very edge of economic viability. Any disruption in their precarious status leaves them out of economic control requiring help to sustain even a minimal life style.

As with most things like this often a person in reality falls into more than category. Only those that fall uniquely into category #4 are capable changing their status through economic help.

One thing missing - any charitable contribution is a sacrifice. In essence a charitable is a willingness to suffer with those in need. Part of the LDS covenant of baptism is a covenant of willingness to suffer with those in need. It is not a covenant to suffer for those in need. The distinction to suffer with is a very important principle that must be understood and followed before any help for poor can be in truth realized.

To demonstrate this point - in the 1960 censers it was discovered that if we transferred just two percent of our gross national product to help the poor that there wold no longer be any poverty in the USA. To make this happen the government launched a welfare (poverty) program called "The Great Society" under then President Johnson that would transfer that 2%. 50 years later we have increased that 2% to over 12% and the result is that the pain and suffering of the poor in the USA has increased.

It is time for both liberals and conservatives to rethink such obvious failures and come up with new ideas. That is what I am trying to initiate. the concept of all suffering together to end poverty - rather than the failed notion that one segment of necessity suffer more.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I think I get your thread a bit more Traveler. I hope someone takes a shot at your questions:

So my question to liberals – if you are not willing to sacrifice anything for the services you think are needed – why do you expect someone else to make such a sacrifice that you have determined is not worth it to you?

...

But I ask in all honesty – If the poor are not willing to sacrifice anything for their health care – why should anyone else think for one minute that the poor will get any valued and appreciated benefit out of it.

[Guest]

Anatess,

You can't just look at percentages to say that 20% of $20,000 is the same as 20% of $20,000,000. Tom Brady's twin has a lot of luxuries that can be cut back if necessary. HEP's $20,000 income does not have much wiggle room. They may both be spending all of their money each year, but one could have their income cut in half and make the necessary adjustments with relative ease. The other could have to go without some basic necessities. Does that make one happier than the other, or happier than the broke Filipino fisherman? No, happiness is based on a lot more than just money. One can be poor and happy or rich and miserable, but you can't just look at percentages.

HAH! And you made my very point... EXACTLY.

What did I tell you? That the current social political problem plaguing your country today is that EVERYBODY - and you just showed this in that there post gopecon - feels they are the judge of who has a lot of luxuries that they should be able to just give that money to somebody else (what, more deserving? more needy?).

Why do you say Tom Brady's twin has a lot of luxuries? Because you think that his $20M home is a luxury! For Tom Brady's twin, it definitely is not.

So, you say - but that's preposterous! Not to Tom Brady's twin. How would you feel if Juan Tamad tells you that you should cut back on your luxuries for having a $350/month apartment when he's just living in an al-fresco bamboo shanty? Of course you're going to fight and say, it definitely is NOT!

See the dilemma here? That's the problem. You guys always think - Tom Brady can afford to lose that gigantic house to give to those who are living in a $350/month apartment without even thinking what Tom Brady's twin does with his money - for all you know, $10M of that $20M is donated every year to the Carmelite sisters... not to mention his parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews that are living in that $20M house when the real estate market crashed and foreclosed on all their homes.

I can't stress it enough - people who do not have much money who think that they deserve a portion of those who do have money just by virtue of them being American - will be the death of this country.

Edited November 16, 2011 by beefche
can't mention political names

[Tyler90AZ]

And that's the biggest failure of President Obama. It's not that he is a democrat, it's not that he is a liberal, it's not that he passed the healthcare bill, it's not that he spend trillions of dollars in stimulus money - that America could have survived. His biggest failure is establishing wealth envy as a cultural norm. And that, my friends, is not something you can change within a generation. You will be reeling from the effects of ENVY for generations to come and not the next president nor 5 presidents later will be able to fix that. Because, it is always easier to take money than to work for it...

Examples?

[Dravin]

Folks we're talking about an upcoming candidate. That is a no-no. If you want to talk political theory that's acceptable as far as it goes but keep in mind the restrictions in place covering the discussion of politics on LDS.net.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Dravin

[annewandering]

what candidate?

[Tyler90AZ]

So my question to liberals – if you are not willing to sacrifice anything for the services you think are needed – why do you expect someone else to make such a sacrifice that you have determined is not worth it to you?

...

But I ask in all honesty – If the poor are not willing to sacrifice anything for their health care – why should anyone else think for one minute that the poor will get any valued and appreciated benefit out of it.

I want to make clear that I am not defending Liberals, I am defending helping those who need our help.

To those who say abandon those who need us most:

If we don't help those who need our help what would this country come to? More crime! More homelessness! Starving kids! The country would quickly deteriorate and take the appearance of a third world country. I think we can all agree that we don't want that to happen, can't we? Don't we like are relatively safe lives where law enforcement can protect us? If we do away with help to the poor they would have nothing to lose and would outnumber law enforcement. You think the protests are bad now do away with helping those who need us most! Imagine 45 million people not getting the necessities of life..... It wouldn't be the taxpayers debating about rather we should help the poor. It would be 45 million people taking from the taxpayers, more so, the rich. If your an anarchist support not helping those who need help.Cause friends rest assured it would be anarchy. Could we blame them? It is human nature to survive at all costs. I think that most people can see not helping those who need us most wouldn't be good.

Traveler:

First lets come to agreement that not all poor people are liberals. Therefore I don't understand how the first question makes sense. Liberals pay taxes, serve their country and live honorable lives just like any other members of a political group.

Who says the poor are not willing to sacrifice? That comes from a false notion that all poor people are bums and poverty stays in families forever. Facts show in most circumstances people escape poverty. However, I do understand what you are saying that we need to rethink just giving away money to those who abuse the system. To me the church welfare plan is great and would be my preferred system of welfare for this country(from what I have read). Although I think it would be hard to implement a new welfare plan.

In my opinion the most important thing we need to look at is the well being of children in poverty situations. If the mom is a drug addict or complete bum and we don't help her guess who suffers, the children. To me that is not right to the children. What we truly need is not a reformed welfare program in America, but a reformed education system. We need good teachers in low income areas to propel these kids to be something great. If we can educate the low income kids and show them there is a way to a better life, poverty has a better chance of being eliminated.

Also health care is helping the middle class more then anybody else. Poor people can get health care already.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[annewandering]

Good morning!

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[Tyler90AZ]

What about the hundreds of places throughout scriptures it says don't be greedy and help the poor?

[Guest gopecon]

Whoaa there Anatess...I'm not trying to judge whether the $20,000,000 a year guy is spending his money wisely. Lots of rich folks do a lot of good to help the poor of their own free will, but by definition that rich guy has more than he needs to survive - which is luxury. Many American poor live somewhat luxurious lives compared to the poor in other parts of the world. As poor as he may be, I don't believe that Juan has a right to demand that the rich guy subsidize him (whether the rich guy has an obligation to help is another question). My point was that saying 20% is equally affordable to someone making $20,000 and someone making $20,000,000 is absurd. This is one reason why tax rates are progressively higher as income levels rise. Both may be able to spend all of their income, but the poorer one has limited options with his. The rich guy may be helping people with half of his money, or he may be spending it on expensive parties, but if his income drops (or is taxed more) he will be able to choose to cut some stuff out. I don't want him to lose his house - no jealousy here, it just seems obvious that if push comes to shove he will have a lot more fat available to trim than someone making $20,000. I wasn't trying to go into income redistribution or tax policy.

[Guest gopecon]

What about the hundreds of places throughout scriptures it says don't be greedy and help the poor?

Tyler you are absolutely right that we should help the poor, but the scriptural injunctions that I have seen were directed at individuals, not the Romans. The chances of truly lifting someone are much better when done with Christlike charity than with a government bureaucracy.

[Tyler90AZ]

Do you propose completely eliminating any government run welfare? If so what happens to the people who rely on it? What is your plan?

Tyler you are absolutely right that we should help the poor, but the scriptural injunctions that I have seen were directed at individuals, not the Romans. The chances of truly lifting someone are much better when done with Christlike charity than with a government bureaucracy.

I would rather see it done that way myself, but I don't think it would happen.

[annewandering]

tada!

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[Guest]

Do you propose completely eliminating any government run welfare? If so what happens to the people who rely on it? What is your plan?

I would rather see it done that way myself, but I don't think it would happen.

In the Philippines, there is no government-run welfare. How does that work?

You will notice that Filipinos are a lot more family-oriented than Americans. In the Philippines, it only takes one person in the family to make it big because cultural traditions bind that person to his family. Why doesn't that work in a macro-societal degree? Because, a family member is tied to his family in a bond much stronger than common citizenship. In the same token, a family member can choose to denounce a member of his family if they continuously hurt the family by his immoral deeds. So that, each member of the family try to behave, to come together and support each other because that is, by all intents and purposes, all that they got.

Basically, in the Philippines, you won't have Sarah Jessica Parker demanding that the government help her cousins who are too poor to have a roof over their heads.

That system works because a family has their own rules, beliefs, moral, and basic structure that the few that do not fall in-line with the family unit can easily be managed. A child learns from his parents the same stuff that his brother learned. Their children (who are now cousins) would share the same stuff as they learn the same things. The in-laws fall in line and expand the rules/beliefs/etc because the marriage, of course, involves the whole family. Parents take good care of their children because those same children takes care of them when they get old. Children take care of their parents because of all the love and support the parents have done for them.

Just as an example - I left home when I was 21. No job, no prospects since I migrated to America as a starving student. My brother, on the other hand, became a neurologist in the Philippines. He makes buckoo money. Yet, he was 43 years old with 3 kids before he left home!

And that is just okay with all of us - especially my parents. My brother wanted to save his buckoo money so he can build a big house and still be able to save for a rainy day. So he stayed with my parents until he got the money. Now, my father has cancer and my brother practically saved his life with his rainy day money.

If that would have been a macro-society it wouldn't have worked. Because, the people who know nothing about my brother would have judged him as "having too much luxurious fat" and wouldn't allow him to judge for himself what is the best use of his own money. And when my dad got cancer, then there wouldn't have been any money to save his life because it would have gotten spent to give somebody else... say, an air conditioner, or something.

Edited November 16, 2011 by anatess

[Guest gopecon]

Eliminating government welfare...no, I'm not proposing that. I think it should be reformed to require more accountability and maybe work (like the Church program). Government welfare has created a culture of dependancy that has done tremendous damage to many families. That said, I'm realistic enough to know that getting rid of it would be catastrophic for many people, and private charity would not be able to pick up the load that quickly. In other words it would have been better to have never started, but now its here so we need to reform it as best we can.

I like anatess' Philipine example. That works there because they have never relied on the government. Family and church would be the first places that people turned for help in an ideal world.

Edited November 16, 2011 by gopecon

[annewandering]

Good evening!

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[Guest]

If there is no government run social programs then needed programs are going to be overlooked. You will get the oh well rainforests need help popular programs getting funded and the programs for pedophiles being neglected.

The advantage to government is that it can have time to see what is needed and apply appropriate funding.

I know that it is not being done to everyones taste but that is why we have votes. Or it used to be anyway.

The fault is not in the government per say. Its in the way we have let it be turned over to who ever will pay the reelection costs.

But that's the natural progression of any government. An elected official, is by virtue of his election, dependent on the people's vote for his sustenance. His natural inclination, therefore, is to give the most voters what they want.

Therefore, things such as welfare is not something you want the government to handle. Because, any given official can BUY a vote. What's the difference between dictator President Marcos stapling a 10 peso bill to the ballot than Senator So-and-So offering to extend unemployment benefits? One is a more obvious vote buy than the other.

If the law only benefits a segment of society and not the entire society as a whole, it is best left to a localized agency where the most people who can benefit it is located and those that do not benefit from it can opt out.

For example - education benefits the entire society - regardless of economic/religious/moral background. A government that relies on literacy to cast an intelligent vote must educate its people. Therefore, giving the people free education is just fine. But, the way education is run, you give more money to these schools here because they need it more... you offer better benefits to teachers here because they need it more... that makes it imbalanced. Therefore, it is better to give everybody X amount of dollars for their education and they can take it wherever they want to get an education. That way, nobody can buy a vote with education money.

[Guest]

Having government to fall back on does not mean that we can not do our own family helping. In fact it should be our responsibility. Nevertheless not everyone has family to fall back on. Should we just let them fall?

We do have a mess in our government. I think EVERYONE agrees on that. The government does waste a huge amount of money. Problem is we can not agree on how to fix it. We can not agree on where the priorities are.

Perhaps if every put out a little compromise it would help. One step or better two steps at a time. One for each side. then move on to the next compromise. I dont see it ever happening.

Families in the Philippines are not formed only by blood. It is a common joke - You must be Filipino if... you can name 300 cousins and only 20 can be written in your family tree. If you don't have family to fall back on in the Philippines, then you are very poor indeed - regardless of how many millions of pesos you have. Juan Tamad's family is the Carmelite sisters...

You won't see it ever happening in this stage of American politics because most everything on the political agenda is intended to buy the most number of votes. Ideology is on its last dying breath.

[annewandering]

We have to be there for each other.

Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering

[Guest]

Whoaa there Anatess...I'm not trying to judge whether the $20,000,000 a year guy is spending his money wisely. Lots of rich folks do a lot of good to help the poor of their own free will, but by definition that rich guy has more than he needs to survive - which is luxury. Many American poor live somewhat luxurious lives compared to the poor in other parts of the world. As poor as he may be, I don't believe that Juan has a right to demand that the rich guy subsidize him (whether the rich guy has an obligation to help is another question). My point was that saying 20% is equally affordable to someone making $20,000 and someone making $20,000,000 is absurd. This is one reason why tax rates are progressively higher as income levels rise. Both may be able to spend all of their income, but the poorer one has limited options with his. The rich guy may be helping people with half of his money, or he may be spending it on expensive parties, but if his income drops (or is taxed more) he will be able to choose to cut some stuff out. I don't want him to lose his house - no jealousy here, it just seems obvious that if push comes to shove he will have a lot more fat available to trim than someone making $20,000. I wasn't trying to go into income redistribution or tax policy.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm plainly discussing the value of a dollar. You keep on saying that a rich guy has "more fat to trim" because his dollar is worth less than the poor guy. This is not always true and nobody should be the judge of what is fat and what is cheddar except for the person who owns the money.

A rich person doesn't always mean he has more options with his money. My OB makes $260,000 a year (or so I heard) and would be judged by society as the "upper crust". His student loans is $80,000 a year. His malpractice insurance is $95,000 a year. I net more money than my OB and I'm just a simple programmer. Yet, he is taxed at $260,000 while I'm taxed as a middle-class citizen. When I was lying in the OR while he peformed a c-section on me, I told him, I didn't vote to increase your taxes. I would feel very bad having my life saved by a guy who I screwed over with a vote. I'm Filipino, I can't vote. Good thing in this case.

To eliminate judging one's "fat content", it is better to be taxed by your consumption and not by your income. A poor person who buys Ramen noodles for dinner should be taxed a lot less than the rich guy who buys caviar...

Edited November 16, 2011 by anatess

[sister_in_faith]

This discussion reminds me of a jon stewart segment aired on Aug 18, 2011...

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/18/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[Guest]

We dont have to see it on the american stage to do it. We just have to be there for each other.

A nice sentiment and is exactly why we have missionaries all over the place. But, it is an impractical solution to a real problem.

[annewandering]

good morning!!

Edited November 18, 2011 by annewandering

[Dravin]

I would say it would be more fair to only be taxed after a living income was deducted.

What's a living income? The decision is made more difficult because a lot of us think not in living income but in lifestyle income. The amount of income it takes to sustain life (some form of shelter, clothing, food and water) is much lower than the amount of income it takes to sustain a lifestyle most Americans would consider tenable. A lot of us include into the cost of living things like cell phones, spacious and private living quarters, clothing for fashion (instead of clothing for physical needs), cable, internet, food for pleasure, but that's not the cost of living, that's the cost of lifestyle. Who determines what is an acceptable lifestyle?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

What's a living income? The decision is made more difficult because a lot of us think not in living income but in lifestyle income. The amount of income it takes to sustain life (some form of shelter, clothing, food and water) is much lower than the amount of income it takes to sustain a lifestyle most Americans would consider tenable. A lot of us include into the cost of living things like cell phones, spacious and private living quarters, clothing for fashion (instead of clothing for physical needs), cable, internet, food for pleasure, but that's not the cost of living, that's the cost of lifestyle. Who determines what is an acceptable lifestyle?

And once again, somebody gets to judge what the "Cost of Living" is... somebody who can buy a vote.