A new data point on Utah birthrates

[Guest]

@Carborendum Your the one who suggested that I read the chapter first. So your the one who apparently was judging, assuming and accusing. 

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What excuses have we made?

That those who seek help are lazy, uneducated or are seeking to take advantage of the system. Which for the most part is an over exaggeration of this who are in need.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Don't think you can take the high ground on this because it's just a scaffold slowly sinking in mud.

Same for you @Carborendum, same for you.

Edited March 29, 2017 by miav

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, miav said:

That those who seek help are lazy, uneducated or are seeking to take advantage of the system. Which for the most part is an over exaggeration of this who are in need.

Just out of curiosity...can you back up that this is an exaggeration? I'm not stating an opinion either way by asking this. But if you're going to make such claims, I think you need to back them up somehow. Show me the statistics.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Yet again, you're stating that just because we don't believe government is the appropriate conduit, we, therefore must be unwilling to give to the poor.

That's simply wrong.  You don't get to assume the moral high ground on this.

See Luke 12

Luke 12 has this gem

Quote

15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?

18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

I'm not certain how this justifies the complaints against Government aid.  In general, I've found those against government aid are NOT those who would actually make up the difference in the case that it disappeared (and yes, that IS a generality).  Normally they are just angry that they pay money to the government and can't spend it themselves, they WANT that money, it's NOT necessarily money that they then would give out to the poor. 

Now, I should point out, before you continue reading, it MAY be that you are taking offense of what I stated in regards to myself and those like me when it is NOT even applicable to you.  I will explain a few paragraphs down.  If it does NOT apply to you when I am referring to my own difficulties, then go in peace and realize, what I said was about MY difficulties and not necessarily YOURS or have anything to do with  you.  My statement in the preceding paragraph was about those in MY situation, not necessarily those who are NOT in the same class or category as myself.

The question is WHY do we feel government aid is needed?  That's what I've been answering.  My answer is, because our charity is not enough.  My thoughts is simply because of selfishness and pride.  In reality, that's my reason I don't give more.  Overall, considering the size of houses of me and others like me, I'm pretty certain it applies to everyone in my income class.  You may NOT be in that same category, and you can simply say...I'm not like Johnson there.  In that instance, go in peace and mind your way.  Chances are that you are taking offense when you are those that I am trying to defend in some way. 

Arguments such as, churches or other charities will take up the slack may satisfy you.  However, it isn't enough in the LDS church, and me and others in it help people gain government aid.  If you are against government aid, then provide me and others a way to HELP others without having to resort to it.  NOT ONE person has given any solution other than...well...we just hate it.

I don't mean a hypothetical solution, I mean a solid solution I can use TODAY to help someone in need.  If you want to donate 100K to our ward offerings, that would solve it for our ward for the next few months.  However, simply saying...it's not justified because...doesn't help solve the church's problems nor it's involvement in helping members use government aid, nor does it help.  I think many here do NOT realize that the LDS church currently heavily relies on the government programs to help those in need in many of the wards and stakes in the LDS church.

If you think this is WRONG, then you need to actually provide a solution that WORKS rather than simply saying you hate something and then offer NOTHING that actually solves the problem.  Otherwise, then yes, I am going to read it as simply angry that the poor are getting help in some way, and that you are actually rich enough that you pay taxes that are paying for that welfare (aka...an income over 150K a year normally) rather than simply supplementing the government benefits one already receives (roads, lights, police, fire, administrative, etc). If one is rich enough that their taxes are paying into these funds for government aid, I have YET to see anyone (and once again, that would include myself) who is actually not selfish in some way that they could not pay more if they would put the needs of others over themselves (Not saying it's not happening, but I have not seen anyone in that situation that actually is or has).

90% of the US simply is subsistence and do NOT pay the taxes that cover what they use.  It's mostly the top 10% that pay for these items, and if you are in that top 10%, well, as I stated in the prior paragraph, I have yet to see anyone of them that could not pay more if they put other things over their own desires.  I'm not their judge though, but we will all have to answer to the Lord at some point (and if one couldn't tell, I'm not particularly comfortable with what I will be able to tell him, I'm not sure what will be the result of the conversation, I hope somewhat good, but I fear it may not be as I have not always followed those scriptures as found in Mosiah or Luke or Matthew.  If anything, the chapter in Luke you mentioned condemns me even more for piling up savings in hope that I have enough to cover my lifestyle into my deep old age).

Now if you are part of the 90% that are using more benefits from the government than you pay in taxes...well, part of this isn't just dealing with the welfare part, but any government aid (And there is a lot of it, much of it many don't even realize they are using).  As I said above, you can go your way in peace, you have taken offense at me implying you aren't giving enough to charity when my comments really have nothing to do with you or your income or your ability to donate.

A LOT of the supposition is that those who are on aid don't need it, or lazy, or other ridiculous, judgmental, and incredibly insulting to many of those who ARE hardworking and ARE striving to provide for their families but are falling short in our society today.  There's a REASON the church has this program to try to help those in need.  It is NOT as strict as it used to be (100 years ago, you were expected to donate everything you had in some communities, and then it was on the bishop to determine your needs and provide the necessities). 

This can be an issue where Bishops take different slants.  I've seen some stingy enough that their members are getting food from the Catholic Charities (how horrible is that, LDS members relying on OTHER churches rather than us to get basics like food) and food banks, while there are those that also burn through their budget for helping the poor in the first week and then are giving out money from their own pockets for the rest of the month.  In either way, this is perhaps one of the TOUGHEST parts of leadership and a headache for many a Bishop out there, simply because in general, the difficulty is that there is NOT enough given in offerings each month and the aid the church can give falls far short of the goalpost.  It's not due to a lack of ability in my opinion, but a lack of something else. 

THIS is why we need government aid right now, because we don't have the resources in the church (and probably other charities) to actually provide the needs of people in need, much less anything else.  Even in the church leaders are helping people sign up for government aid in various categories because there is NO OTHER CHOICE really, right now.

Either that or we let people die in the streets.  That seems rather unchristian to me.

Edited March 28, 2017 by JohnsonJones
added second paragraph for clarity and so people understand what I said is about me and my difficulties and not necessarily theirs.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In general, I've found those against government aid are NOT those who would actually make up the difference in the case that it disappeared (and yes, that IS a generality).  Normally they are just angry that they pay money to the government and can't spend it themselves, they WANT that money, it's NOT necessarily money that they then would give out to the poor. 

How, in the name of Fats Waller, do you come up with these conclusions?

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The question is WHY do we feel government aid is needed?  That's what I've been answering.  My answer is, because our charity is not enough.   

I don't disagree that charity is not enough as it stands. That has nothing to do with whether government aid and the idea of a welfare state in general is effective or not, and whether there may or may not be a different solution that isn't based upon the principles of the devil's kingdom.

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Arguments such as, churches or other charities will take up the slack may satisfy you.  However, it isn't enough in the LDS church, and me and others in it help people gain government aid.  If you are against government aid, then provide me and others a way to HELP others without having to resort to it.  NOT ONE person has given any solution other than...well...we just hate it.

We hate it because it is destructive and ultimately hurts everybody. It is NOT a solution. It does not work. It and similar programs and ideologies will destroy society. It takes away freedom and crushes the masses under authoritarianism. Unchecked it will be the nation's end.

Are you familiar with the church's current self-reliance initiative? If you want an alternate idea then that's it. Not the church. The initiative. That is a program that is built upon God's way. That is a program that could actually do some good in the world.

But ultimately that's not even the point. No one argues that church's and charities can solve the problem of the poor. We're simply arguing that the government cannot solve the problem either. And the government's welfare-state socialistic approach is destructive and harmful.

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't mean a hypothetical solution, I mean a solid solution I can use TODAY to help someone in need.  If you want to donate 100K to our ward offerings, that would solve it for our ward for the next few months.  However, simply saying...it's not justified because...doesn't help solve the church's problems nor it's involvement in helping members use government aid, nor does it help.  I think many here do NOT realize that the LDS church currently heavily relies on the government programs to help those in need in many of the wards and stakes in the LDS church.

As for me, I'm not saying that a person using government aid is unjustified. I've used it. And I would expect others in need to take advantage of it as well (but not abuse it, of course). But that is a different matter than believing that it is not a long term policy solution to solving poverty.

Once again, are you familiar with the church's self-reliance initiative? If not, you need to be.

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you think this is WRONG, then you need to actually provide a solution that WORKS rather than simply saying you hate something and then offer NOTHING that actually solves the problem. 

The church's self-reliance initiative. Unless you believe that the solution actually given by God and His authorized servants can't work.

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How, in the name of Fats Waller, do you come up with these conclusions?

I don't disagree that charity is not enough as it stands. That has nothing to do with whether government aid and the idea of a welfare state in general is effective or not, and whether there may or may not be a different solution that isn't based upon the principles of the devil's kingdom.

We hate it because it is destructive and ultimately hurts everybody. It is NOT a solution. It does not work. It and similar programs and ideologies will destroy society. It takes away freedom and crushes the masses under authoritarianism. Unchecked it will be the nation's end.

Are you familiar with the church's current self-reliance initiative? If you want an alternate idea then that's it. Not the church. The initiative. That is a program that is built upon God's way. That is a program that could actually do some good in the world.

But ultimately that's not even the point. No one argues that church's and charities can solve the problem of the poor. We're simply arguing that the government cannot solve the problem either. And the government's welfare-state socialistic approach is destructive and harmful.

As for me, I'm not saying that a person using government aid is unjustified. I've used it. And I would expect others in need to take advantage of it as well (but not abuse it, of course). But that is a different matter than believing that it is not a long term policy solution to solving poverty.

Once again, are you familiar with the church's self-reliance initiative? If not, you need to be.

The church's self-reliance initiative. Unless you believe that the solution actually given by God and His authorized servants can't work.

So I take it you are a rather HIGH earner in life.  Do you feel you donate enough of your 150K + income each year?

If so, that is between you and the LORD.

As far as the church goes, it seems you have a problem with the church resorting to using government aid in assisting people.  Since you DO make that much, you probably have around 90K left after taxes (unless you are smart in dealing with taxes in which case you probably have somewhere between 100 and 125K or more).  You realize you have people living off of 30K or less without church assistance.  You have people that are working full time and making less than 16K a year (sometimes working two or three jobs) and having two, three, four or sometimes more mouths to feed.

And of course, as a high earner, 150K is on the low end of the scale.  It could be that you make considerably higher than that.

Self reliance is one item in the church, but the church has had the Bishop's Warehouse, and what many call Church Welfare (though it is basically a descendant of the Law of Consecration, which I suppose you are also against?) since...well...near the beginning of the church.  Currently, the church utilizes the government assistance in helping out with the needy in the church when the offerings do not cover what is needed.

If you do NOT like this aspect of the church, I'm certain you can try living as those who live off the 30K a year and donate the other 60K to the ward in fast offerings.  That would go a LONG way to helping the problem, at least in your ward.

You might find referring others to use government assistance a tad cheaper though.

 

PS: If I recall, the question wasn't whether government aid was a long term solution to poverty, but whether we felt government aid is needed.  I would that it was NOT and we would truly live in a society where such measures were NOT needed, but as the society we live in is full of wickedness, evil, selfishness, pride, lust, and every other sort of evil and vice...right now, it sort of takes up the slack while other resources do not.

In that light, my answer, especially as the church has it as a solution to problems right now, is that yes, government aid IS needed currently.

Edited March 28, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So I take it you are a rather HIGH earner in life.  Do you feel you donate enough of your 150K + income each year?

I wish!

[Guest MormonGator]

41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So I take it you are a rather HIGH earner in life.  Do you feel you donate enough of your 150K + income each year?

 

I'm not sure you can make that accusation of anyone without much more evidence. Even if he was, I'm not sure it's relevant to the conversation

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As far as the church goes, it seems you have a problem with the church resorting to using government aid in assisting people. 

Huh?

What?

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

the Law of Consecration, which I suppose you are also against?

I am?

Huh?

*sigh*

Seriously. You are the king of straw men character attacks.

[JohnsonJones]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Huh?

What?

I am?

Huh?

*sigh*

Seriously. You are the king of straw men character attacks.

Is that not what you've been saying all along.  My posts have been in regards to my own failings (which people have leapt upon) which dealt with those in my situation.  I clarified that if they were not in my situation then go in peace...you responded which indicated that you are either in a similar situation or did NOT like my other point of discussion which centered around WHY government aid is necessary...and that is because the charity provided otherwise does not cover that, which I clarified in the posts you responded to in regards to the LDS church utilizing government aid these days because we simply do not get enough in offerings and donations.  You tried to break off of my point in saying it was necessary by expanding it to say it was a long term solution (which is not part of my discussion).  I was saying it is necessary, especially as it is now utilized in conjunction with Church welfare in many wards and stakes (which is a very compacted way of what I stated).

You objected to it.  You stated in response to why the government aid is necessary as it is being utilized by the LDS church with the following items

Quote

We hate it because it is destructive and ultimately hurts everybody. It is NOT a solution. It does not work. It and similar programs and ideologies will destroy society. It takes away freedom and crushes the masses under authoritarianism. Unchecked it will be the nation's end.
 

Quote

But ultimately that's not even the point. No one argues that church's and charities can solve the problem of the poor. We're simply arguing that the government cannot solve the problem either. And the government's welfare-state socialistic approach is destructive and harmful.

 

This is a system descended from the Law of Consecration (which tithing COULD be seen as a descendant of as well) and hence the connection.  Most, outside the church see the Law of Consecration similarly to socialism (though it would be religious socialism) and the ULTIMATE form of welfare or government (in this instance, theocratic) intrusion into others financial situations.

In response that the government aid IS part of the system the church welfare is currently utilizing you also used this item

Quote

The church's self-reliance initiative. Unless you believe that the solution actually given by God and His authorized servants can't work

Where as the Law of Consecration and sequentially those systems that arose when it was no longer used by those or lived upon anymore part of which was the Bishop's Warehouse and Church Welfare ARE part of the solution actually given by God BY his prophets and currently administered overall by General Authorities.  Yes, we need to try to be self reliant (and you suppose that those who are ON church welfare are not trying, which is actually incredibly insultive to those that I know that are hardworking and still have those difficulties), but there are times when other needs are required...which is where the entire system of the Church Welfare comes into play.  Unfortunately, at this point, there is so much need we do not have the adequate funds to deal with it all.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

Is that not what you've been saying all along.  My posts have been in regards to my own failings (which people have leapt upon) which dealt with those in my situation.  I clarified that if they were not in my situation then go in peace...you responded which indicated that you are either in a similar situation or did NOT like my other point of discussion which centered around WHY government aid is necessary...and that is because the charity provided otherwise does not cover that, which I clarified in the posts you responded to in regards to the LDS church utilizing government aid these days because we simply do not get enough in offerings and donations.  You tried to break off of my point in saying it was necessary by expanding it to say it was a long term solution (which is not part of my discussion).  I was saying it is necessary, especially as it is now utilized in conjunction with Church welfare in many wards and stakes (which is a very compacted way of what I stated).

You objected to it.  You stated in response to why the government aid is necessary as it is being utilized by the LDS church with the following items

 

This is a system descended from the Law of Consecration (which tithing COULD be seen as a descendant of as well) and hence the connection.  Most, outside the church see the Law of Consecration similarly to socialism (though it would be religious socialism) and the ULTIMATE form of welfare or government (in this instance, theocratic) intrusion into others financial situations.

In response that the government aid IS part of the system the church welfare is currently utilizing you also used this item

Where as the Law of Consecration and sequentially those systems that arose when it was no longer used by those or lived upon anymore part of which was the Bishop's Warehouse and Church Welfare ARE part of the solution actually given by God BY his prophets and currently administered overall by General Authorities.  Yes, we need to try to be self reliant (and you suppose that those who are ON church welfare are not trying, which is actually incredibly insultive to those that I know that are hardworking and still have those difficulties), but there are times when other needs are required...which is where the entire system of the Church Welfare comes into play.  Unfortunately, at this point, there is so much need we do not have the adequate funds to deal with it all.

You are very confused.

[JohnsonJones]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You are very confused.

Maybe I am in regards to what you are saying.  I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent.  I hope you the best.

Edited March 28, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Maybe I am in regards to what you are saying. 

Yes. You keep making assumptions about what I've said, inferring things into it that I haven't even implied, characterizing me as a certain type of individual, and then imagining all these things I must believe. And you're confusing the issues on top of that so I cannot even follow your responses half the time. I suspect there are many things we agree on...but we can't even get there because you've decided to dump upon me all these strange ideas -- conclusions you've jumped to with no evidence at all -- I'm greedy, I'm rich, I don't care about the poor, I'm selfish, I'm prideful, I'm against the law of consecration (where on earth did you get that?), I have a problem with anyone using aid, etc., etc. I keep responding by pointing out that you're wrong, and that you are demonizing me with no evidence, and you respond by doubling down, quoting scriptures to prove how evil and sinful I and others are, and continuing to point out all these made-up-in-your-mind flaws I have. And I'm honestly left here just sort of baffled at it all. It makes it impossible to have an actual conversation.

[Backroads]

On 3/27/2017 at 9:52 AM, anatess2 said:

That's what FAMILY is for.  And if Family can't handle it, then that's where the Church or friends comes in.  You don't have family or  Church or friends?  Then the problem is much bigger than any government should take on.

I wish I was better a needlepointing so I could needlepoint this on a pillow or something. With vines and flowers.

I just love it so.

[Backroads]

On 3/27/2017 at 11:38 AM, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think I disagree, not everyone is religious, and will not turn to religion for help, some people for whatever reason have no family, some people outlive their friends and family. One gentleman comes to mind he is 94 and has outlived everyone.  Then you have your mentally ill and otherwise afflicted. 

I think that there is a role for government, albeit a tiny one but there is a place for it.

I believe that any community worth its salt ought to be taking care of its truly needy and that does tend to translate into some definition of government assistance.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I wish I was better a needlepointing so I could needlepoint this on a pillow or something. With vines and flowers.

I just love it so.

You're so evil.  Instead of needlepoint, you should spend your time and money on feeding the poor.  Nevermind the fact that you ARE one of the poor.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Guest

[Backroads]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're so evil.  Instead of needlepoint, you should spend your time and money on feeding the poor.  Nevermind the fact that you ARE one of the poor.

According to comments on KSL, I'm a bad teacher for not buying snacks for my students. Too busy needlepointing, I guess. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

According to comments on KSL, I'm a bad teacher for not buying snacks for my students. 

When you start buying them cigarettes, you become a bad teacher . 

[my two cents]

9 hours ago, miav said:

As I read through this thread it it truly saddens me how many have forgotten or make excuses for Christ call to help the hungry and needy.

Uhh - not so fast.  I, for one, have donated quite a bit* to help the hungry and needy so you may want to walk that back.

*above high taxes - that go in part to welfare programs

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

Let me ask both of you.  Do you think it is moral for government to spend trillions of dollars on welfare systems and be in debt for $19+Trillion and rapidly rising and still have the same, if not more, poor American people?

I'm going to ask this question again because it might have gotten missed.  The question above is for @JohnsonJones and @miav.

[JohnsonJones]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm going to ask this question again because it might have gotten missed.  The question above is for @JohnsonJones and @miav.

That probably is dependant on your understanding of government debt and spending as well as what one considers welfare systems. This actually is probably worth an entirely different subject matter, as there are MANY things one could probably ask in regards to this question.  It is more of a question of whether what the government spending in general is moral or immoral.  This can also be a VERY long answer, I apologize in advance.

The US has been in debt basically since the birth of the nation.  It has almost always been in debt.  The question then is if it is moral to be in debt...period.  That would be up to one to decide.  If they decide that it is either not immoral, or moral, the next question probably is, what is it moral to be in debt over?  This is a question that has plagued many people for many centuries. 

In regards to the US debt, the question that economists are normally more interested in is whether it is a healthy or unhealthy debt.  There are two large factors in this.  The first is what portion of the GDP does the debt make up and secondly, what percentage of the GDP and/or tax dollars incoming go to pay down that debt?

For reference, I am going to draw information from open sources on the internet rather than books and such which you may not have easy access to.  This limits me somewhat in the discussion.  These links are

US total government spending

Federal Spending: Where Does your dollars go

cbo budget graphic

Policy Basics: Where do our federal tax dollars go

For your perusal and so you know what I've drawn upon and can utilize them to discount me or provide a counter opinion (yes, when in discussions like these I sometimes like to have references to the information).

The first item that needs to be paid is interest on that Debt.  Right now it appears our national debt by 2015 was around 13 Trillion, which has ballooned over the past 17 years (notably starting with Bush Jr. and then continuing under Obama).  You have to pay this.  This is around 6% of the current budget or a little over 220 billion dollars.

Is it moral to pay interest on your debt.  The US government seems to think so as it has been paying interest since the days the French loaned the US money.

In regards to the GDP it has ballooned out of control under Obama.  During the after the newly formed United States under the constitution the debt to GDP ratio was around 35%.  1854 probably was the low point of the debt where it was at 1% of the GDP.  Debt always seems to go up during a war and afterwards, and while it raised up to a comfortable 13% during the Civil War, afterwards it ballooned back up to 32%.  It increased again after WWI to 35%, but in what some consider an unhealthy move where much of it decreased vs. GDP, it went down to 3.2% right before the great depression hit.  Good job...decrease the debt and drive the nation to the biggest depression the world had experienced up to then.

Roosevelt, even with all his social programs he introduced and WWII hitting managed to keep it under 50% at a maximum of 48% while he was alive.  He died and it ballooned after WWII to the greatest percentage of GDP it has ever reached which was 122%.  We reduced it greatly (I like Ike?) and debt was down to 14.4 percent in 1951.  It saw a large increase under the democrats in the 90s and ballooned upwards to 66% of the GDP, but there was a lot of prosperity created.  It was reduced by a Republican congress and went down to as low as 18% and also caused the first of several mini-recessions we've had in the past several decades (and which many claim we never actually have recovered from if we were counting stats like we did in the 30s).  It increased at a steady rate under Bush, but nothing really all that notable.  It wasn't until 2009 that it exploded again and reached nigh 100% of the GDP (which I do not view as a good thing).  However, debt CAN actually be good for the economy.

The biggest amount of the money we spend is on a welfare type system.  It is probably the biggest Ponzi scheme in the US.  You pay money into it now for others to spend, and you hope that you get to spend the money your children put into it later.  This is called Social Security.  It takes up around 24-25% of the budget.  This is about 700-888 Billion dollars (depending on which graphic you look at).  The money being spent now is NOT really the money that people put in before, that is an illusion that many think, but do not realize.  That money was utilized long ago.  The problem with Ponzi schemes is that to work you need to have an increasing number of people paying in than paid in before.  Currently with the US birth rate, the only thing that would keep SS afloat (though with government borrowing from it, it is believed this won't even help) is with immigration keeping the numbers up.

Is this scheme moral?  Is this method or helping our elderly in their older years a moral thing to do?

Another major chunk that can be added to this is unemployment.  Is it moral to help people out who have lost their jobs.  Unemployment is not forever, and is meant to be a temporary thing.  Is it moral to have unemployment as something to help?

In addition you have Federal wages and pensions.  Should we pay government workers?  Do we pay them too much or too little?

Totaled together, these items appear to make up the largest chunk of the budget at 32% (or 48% of mandatory spending).

The next largest chunk that we spend is the most controversial, and as the forum has problems when my posts go long, I'll post the next portion in a second post below.

 

[JohnsonJones]

Many have problems with weapons of war.  Some consider it immoral to have a permanent standing military force.  This is one major difference between us and Europe, and in fact, between the US and many other nations.  While the US spends a LOT of money on it's military, other nations may spend this money on helping out their citizens.  This actually almost TRIPLES the amount of money other nations can spend in relation to those on government aid in other nations...but to see that I'd have to show how much is spent on welfare or what some would call welfare.  I will, but it will be below because it is not as large a part of the budget as some may think.  The military complex takes up around 16% of the budget or around 600 Billion dollars (or, depending on the graphic, up to 700 billion dollars).  This also makes up around 53% of discretionary spending.  This is a huge amount of money of things that we hope we never use, and if we do, is it moral to wage war on people in other nations, especially if it is tampering in things that are their internal affairs instead of ours?  What spending in the military is moral.  Is it moral that 30-50% of the military have bars and strip clubs outside their bases, ports, and forts that they spend money on?  Is it moral that we train professional killers?  Why do we need a military FAR greater than any other nation out there, and which some would say is bigger than many of them combined?  Is this moral?  (my own opinion is yes, but then, I've already shown I'm an evil guy that is pretty much prideful and selfish sooooo....).  (I still consider military spending moral despite qualms some may have on it).

The next major chunk is relatively new in how large a chunk it is.  This covers CHIP (is it moral to provide healthcare for children?), Medicaid and Medicare (is it moral to provide lower cost medical care to our elderly and disabled?).  Finally, the most controversial is the burgeoning cost of subsidized healthcare.  Is it moral to help those who cannot afford healthcare to get healthcare, or barring that, to help try to lower emergency room costs that raise the overall cost to healthcare by trying to ensure those in that situation may be able to get regular healthcare to avoid this?  Is any of this moral?

It is very hard to use these graphics to divide out which item costs what.  It appears that the majority is from Medicare and Medicaid (rather than CHIP) and thus the question remains, should we help the elderly and disabled with healthcare.  It appears that this entails almost 25% of spending together, though independently they would be lower then defense.  When combined with other programs it rises to almost 28%.  This means, Defense, Social Security, and Medical make up around 3/4 of the budget, and we haven't even gotten to the economic net of welfare yet.  Including that 6% of interest and you are at almost 4/5 of the budget already.

Welfare is coming however, and is considered under the Safety Net programs.  These programs make up 10% of the budgetary spending.  Is a tithe being spent on the needs of the poor worth it.  We spent around 362 Billion in 2015.  That means it's going to take 3 years to even reach that trillion dollar mark, and 10 years to reach the same amount we spend on the budget.  It's almost half of what we spent on the military after you include the over runs (which in the military can run up to 100-200 billion), and is one of the lowest spent in the Western World.  Many European nations consider it almost criminal how we treat our poor and consider it immoral.  However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, is it in fact immoral to spend money on these individuals?

35.4% of Americans are on some form of Federal assistance in the Safety net programs.  Only 13.2% of those receiving welfare were NOT working (and sometimes that was due to disability).  The Wall Street Journal had an article about this that unfortunately is behind a pay wall, but if you can read it, it is illuminating that says "Get a Job? Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One." 

This is an article from the Washington Post (sorry, as I said, the WSJ was behind a paywall and I am trying to stick to open sources for people to freely read here)

When work isn't enough to keep you off welfare and food stamps

The problem isn't necessarily people who are not working, but those who are working but not receiving enough to live off of.

So the question suddenly gets more complex.  As the forum is getting sticky again, I'll continue with yet another post below.

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

When we look at the Safety Net programs, where is it moral or immoral.  Is it immoral to help those in need?  Is it immoral to spend the huge amount of money we do?

It isn't what is causing us to go into debt by itself, that would be the Defense, Medical, and Social Security programs.  If we cut those we would have a surplus as we bring in around 2.2 Trillion dollars each year (but spend over 3 and half Trillion).  Spending on Welfare literally only takes up around 1/6 to 1/5 of what we take in as income for the US government.

Deviating from my open questions, especially as it sort of addresses the original question asked, I would say it is more immoral to purposefully pay your employees less money than required for them to live on.  That is purposefully abusing the system of the safety net.  It isn't those who are working and not making enough's fault, but those who would rely on the welfare system to cover the gaps for a living wage to subsidize their business. 

HOWEVER, the other side of the coin to this, is it KEEPS OUR costs down.  Because those minimum wage employees at Mcdonalds are paid so low, and qualify for welfare, we have cheap Mcdonalds fare.  Because those employees at Walmart are paid low enough that they need welfare in many instances, we have cheap goods from Walmart.  In a way, our demands for cheap goods drives the prices low and thus the pay which in turn causes the business to purposefully rely on the idea that their employees can get by with the Safety Nets (government aid) that are in place.  Are WE moral for supporting such a system in place?

There are a whole bunch of quanderies in this regards when we consider what is moral or what is not.  Welfare itself is not the driving force behind US debt.  Even if we take what we spend over what we bring in (~3.6 Trillion vs 2.2 Trillion, so around 1.4 Trillion in overspending) and equate the entirety of Welfare to overspending, that still only makes up around 1/4 of the total, meaning that 3/4 of that debt being incurred are from other things entirely.

To see this in action we'd have to turn to another nation, for example, a little place Called Deseret that was located in the Far West in the late 1800s.  However, I'm not certain examining that would make people completely comfortable, but we can see the results from another nation that expends HEAVILY into social nets and overspending, Sweden.  One of the happiest places on Earth according to recent surveys, and rather prosperous.  Of course, the big question some are asking is how long they can keep it up.  How long until this system they have collapses.  Is this a temporary thing or can they actually last with their policies.  Is what they are doing moral?  Many nations around the world do not spend as high a percentage of their spending on the military, but make it up with spending it on social programs and government aid.  IS this moral of them?

Supposedly Welfare spending has decreased from 2015 levels in it's percentage down to 9% for 2017.  I highly doubt our welfare programs are going to be the cause of our bankruptcy.

Other spending comes in to smaller percentages, such as the Veterans Affairs which appears to be around 187 Billion for 2015.  Is this moral?  Is it moral to send our youth to war and have them injured, spending 600 Billion + on the military machine which does this damage to them, and then merely spend around 1/3rd of that for ALL the veterans that come back.  We are talking YEARS of veterans as opposed to the current crop, and in that we are spending 1/3 to 1/4 of what we spend on defense.  Is this moral?

Some would see the VA as government aid and welfare.  Does this make you outraged that people would call it that?  Or do you think this is something that veterans should have and is underfunded and outraged over that?  Or is it something that you feel neither way, at least to those extremes?  What is moral in this instance?

There are many smaller items there that take up the spending piecemeal and I'm only going to touch on a few more here.

We have what I believe is Social Security disability which some may consider Government Aid.  That accounts for a total of 29 Billion or 2.61% of discretionary spending or around 1% of the total budget. Is it moral to spend this money on this?  I think this category is perhaps one of the first areas that will be killed off under Social Security reform, but it's not going to make a HUGE difference in saving Social Security.

Transportation probably comes around 4% of the total spending, we all use roads, is this moral?

International affairs which some think by cutting would save the budget is only around 3.67% of discretionary spending, or about 1.22% of the total spent.  I'm kind of at a loss how that's going to save the budget if we cut it (Still, that small percentage is equal to around 41 BILLION dollars).

When you ask the question as you asked, it's more complex of an answer.  If one is merely meaning the Welfare system as in the government security nets system, or what most call welfare, I HIGHLY doubt that is actually the cause of the US debt.  If you include Social Security in that, it is still questionable and falls under what you think is moral in regards to how it is run, created, and who it helps.  If you include the Medical help we give to people, it becomes an even harder question, though if we take ALL of those away, then we probably would finally have a surplus in the budget.

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think it covers a lot of area.  Sorry for it taking several posts to cover it all, but the forum starts getting sticky (a delay between what I type and the words showing up on screen) after a while which makes it hard to type.

 

 

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

That probably is dependant on your understanding of government debt and spending as well as what one considers welfare systems. This actually is probably worth an entirely different subject matter, as there are MANY things one could probably ask in regards to this question.  It is more of a question of whether what the government spending in general is moral or immoral.  This can also be a VERY long answer, I apologize in advance.

The US has been in debt basically since the birth of the nation.  It has almost always been in debt.  The question then is if it is moral to be in debt...period.  That would be up to one to decide.  If they decide that it is either not immoral, or moral, the next question probably is, what is it moral to be in debt over?  This is a question that has plagued many people for many centuries. 

In regards to the US debt, the question that economists are normally more interested in is whether it is a healthy or unhealthy debt.  There are two large factors in this.  The first is what portion of the GDP does the debt make up and secondly, what percentage of the GDP and/or tax dollars incoming go to pay down that debt?

For reference, I am going to draw information from open sources on the internet rather than books and such which you may not have easy access to.  This limits me somewhat in the discussion.  These links are

US total government spending

Federal Spending: Where Does your dollars go

cbo budget graphic

Policy Basics: Where do our federal tax dollars go

For your perusal and so you know what I've drawn upon and can utilize them to discount me or provide a counter opinion (yes, when in discussions like these I sometimes like to have references to the information).

The first item that needs to be paid is interest on that Debt.  Right now it appears our national debt by 2015 was around 13 Trillion, which has ballooned over the past 17 years (notably starting with Bush Jr. and then continuing under Obama).  You have to pay this.  This is around 6% of the current budget or a little over 220 billion dollars.

Is it moral to pay interest on your debt.  The US government seems to think so as it has been paying interest since the days the French loaned the US money.

In regards to the GDP it has ballooned out of control under Obama.  During the after the newly formed United States under the constitution the debt to GDP ratio was around 35%.  1854 probably was the low point of the debt where it was at 1% of the GDP.  Debt always seems to go up during a war and afterwards, and while it raised up to a comfortable 13% during the Civil War, afterwards it ballooned back up to 32%.  It increased again after WWI to 35%, but in what some consider an unhealthy move where much of it decreased vs. GDP, it went down to 3.2% right before the great depression hit.  Good job...decrease the debt and drive the nation to the biggest depression the world had experienced up to then.

Roosevelt, even with all his social programs he introduced and WWII hitting managed to keep it under 50% at a maximum of 48% while he was alive.  He died and it ballooned after WWII to the greatest percentage of GDP it has ever reached which was 122%.  We reduced it greatly (I like Ike?) and debt was down to 14.4 percent in 1951.  It saw a large increase under the democrats in the 90s and ballooned upwards to 66% of the GDP, but there was a lot of prosperity created.  It was reduced by a Republican congress and went down to as low as 18% and also caused the first of several mini-recessions we've had in the past several decades (and which many claim we never actually have recovered from if we were counting stats like we did in the 30s).  It increased at a steady rate under Bush, but nothing really all that notable.  It wasn't until 2009 that it exploded again and reached nigh 100% of the GDP (which I do not view as a good thing).  However, debt CAN actually be good for the economy.

The biggest amount of the money we spend is on a welfare type system.  It is probably the biggest Ponzi scheme in the US.  You pay money into it now for others to spend, and you hope that you get to spend the money your children put into it later.  This is called Social Security.  It takes up around 24-25% of the budget.  This is about 700-888 Billion dollars (depending on which graphic you look at).  The money being spent now is NOT really the money that people put in before, that is an illusion that many think, but do not realize.  That money was utilized long ago.  The problem with Ponzi schemes is that to work you need to have an increasing number of people paying in than paid in before.  Currently with the US birth rate, the only thing that would keep SS afloat (though with government borrowing from it, it is believed this won't even help) is with immigration keeping the numbers up.

Is this scheme moral?  Is this method or helping our elderly in their older years a moral thing to do?

Another major chunk that can be added to this is unemployment.  Is it moral to help people out who have lost their jobs.  Unemployment is not forever, and is meant to be a temporary thing.  Is it moral to have unemployment as something to help?

In addition you have Federal wages and pensions.  Should we pay government workers?  Do we pay them too much or too little?

Totaled together, these items appear to make up the largest chunk of the budget at 32% (or 48% of mandatory spending).

The next largest chunk that we spend is the most controversial, and as the forum has problems when my posts go long, I'll post the next portion in a second post below.

 

All things mentioned here are irrelevant to the question.  So I don't see where you answered the question.

One thing your post did show is how absolutely inefficient it is to choose the government as the solution to any social ill.

Edited March 29, 2017 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

All things mentioned here are irrelevant to the question.  So I don't see where you answered the question.

One thing your post did show is how absolutely inefficient it is to choose the government as the solution to any social ill.

I think I answered the question overall.  Your question is too broad and without knowing what you mean, is impossible to answer.

If you are referring to welfare itself, or the government security net, I answered it specifically on what was moral or immoral in my opinion in that regards (if you read my posts, you should see where I addressed what I may consider immoral on this specific program already, but I don't think it is the US welfare programs you are referring to perhaps)...however, WELFARE as put out by the US government isn't costing us trillions of dollars every year, or even every other year and is inconsequential compared to other programs.  In fact, if we spent money like many other nations which actually spend more money on their social nets but less on military and other areas, we would have a surplus every year. I covered above how welfare actually is no where close to causing a deficit, and if the other larger programs were cut, we would actually have a HUGE surplus if we were just talking about welfare spending.

However, discussing welfare itself doesn't fit with  your question, which was

Quote

Let me ask both of you.  Do you think it is moral for government to spend trillions of dollars on welfare systems and be in debt for $19+Trillion and rapidly rising and still have the same, if not more, poor American people?

That isn't applicable to the Government Security Net programs or Welfare as people put it in it's strictly confined box.  it doesn't even make sense in the context of how much we spend on Welfare, Welfare isn't the program that's causing the US to be in debt at 19+ Trillion dollars.

If you meant other programs rather than just what is straight up listed as welfare (for example, do you include Social Security which is perhaps the biggest and largest of the government programs), I need to know what exactly you mean by your statement, that is if you are referring to the US government.  Determining which ones of them are or are not moral (because to get trillions of dollars you have to combine several of them) depends on what you are asking in regards to this.  I've listed all the various different programs as well as links so you can peruse yourself to determine exactly what programs you are including in your question and what you think is moral or immoral so you can narrow it down more precisely.

This is where my post above went, I need to know what programs that we spend money on are you considering in your question above, because with the commentary you included it can't possibly be on the actual defined welfare program as budgeted into the US budget.

Edited March 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Clarifying that I actually talked about welfare specifically if one read my posts.

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think I answered the question overall.  Your question is too broad and without knowing what you mean, is impossible to answer.

If you are referring to welfare itself, or the government security net, I answered it specifically on what was moral or immoral in my opinion in that regards (if you read my posts, you should see where I addressed what I may consider immoral on this specific program already, but I don't think it is the US welfare programs you are referring to perhaps)...however, WELFARE as put out by the US government isn't costing us trillions of dollars every year, or even every other year and is inconsequential compared to other programs.  In fact, if we spent money like many other nations which actually spend more money on their social nets but less on military and other areas, we would have a surplus every year. I covered above how welfare actually is no where close to causing a deficit, and if the other larger programs were cut, we would actually have a HUGE surplus if we were just talking about welfare spending.

However, discussing welfare itself doesn't fit with  your question, which was

That isn't applicable to the Government Security Net programs or Welfare as people put it in it's strictly confined box.  it doesn't even make sense in the context of how much we spend on Welfare, Welfare isn't the program that's causing the US to be in debt at 19+ Trillion dollars.

If you meant other programs rather than just what is straight up listed as welfare (for example, do you include Social Security which is perhaps the biggest and largest of the government programs), I need to know what exactly you mean by your statement, that is if you are referring to the US government.  Determining which ones of them are or are not moral (because to get trillions of dollars you have to combine several of them) depends on what you are asking in regards to this.  I've listed all the various different programs as well as links so you can peruse yourself to determine exactly what programs you are including in your question and what you think is moral or immoral so you can narrow it down more precisely.

This is where my post above went, I need to know what programs that we spend money on are you considering in your question above, because with the commentary you included it can't possibly be on the actual defined welfare program as budgeted into the US budget.

It's really amusing to hear anybody - American or European or otherwise - say, America should do what European countries do, spend more on people instead of military.  Europeans, of course, do not spend on their military because they rely on the American military.  That's why Europeans can go crazy on social programs... which, by the way, is imploding all over Europe.

In any case, the Federal Government exists only for 3 things - 1.) protection of the Bill of Rights, 2.) National Security, 3.) Interstate Commerce.  Anything they do beyond that is vote-buying.  The State Government is the proper venue for social safety nets.  Yet you see as many as 16 states, if not more, operate consistently in the red.  And this with loads of Federal subsidies.

But, that's still irrelevant to the question.  You can say - they should spend on this instead of that.  Well, they don't.  The government is in debt and they can't do programs successfully as evidenced by the problem still unresolved after decades of spending $ to fix it.  YET, you still think the government should be the solution to poverty.  Why is that?  What I'm suspecting is that you want the government to be the solution to the problem even as they suck at it so that they can impose charity at the point of the gun.