When Political Rhetoric Turns Strange and Ugly
go4tli
envy". I'm even sick of the *term*.
First of all, of course, because people who claim that this is the
motivation of their political opponents have a long way to go before
they demonstrate that it's even applicable. For the record,
repetition isn't evidence. Not even if some people are repeating it
*on TV*.
Second, since when is "Let the one who has two tunics give to him who
has none" the politics of envy? It's not the fact that some people
have two tunics that has people like me upset; it's the fact that some
people have *none*.
More to the point, it's the fact that one percent of us have four
hundred fifty tunics or more *each*(1), most of the rest of us have
one (in various states of repair or disrepair), and nine percent of us
have no tunic at all(2). This would seem to indicate that something
is seriously broken.
Frankly, referring to this concern for the least of these as "the
politics of envy" seems like a mendacious way for those who have more
than one tunic for every day of the year to keep their tunics and feel
righteous for *not* sharing our concern.
The weird thing is that the 450-tunic owners have gotten a significant
number of the one-tunic owners to defend them for this attitude.
The weirder thing is that they've even managed to convince a lot of
the one-tunic owners that this is the way God would want it, *when God
made His desires on the issue perfectly clear*.
To put it plainly, we're wasting nine percent of our people so that
one percent of our people can keep the status quo in place. Somehow,
this waste is seen as evidence of the efficiency of the market.
----------
(1) Yeah, the salaries of the top 1% increased in 2011. Yet again.
And, yet again, the *increase* was far more than the *total* median
salary.
----------
(2) If you include the people who are wearing tunics that don't
fit(3), that number is much higher than nine percent.
----------
(3) That's supposed to be people qualified to work in full-time
careers, but who are working in as hourly employees because those are
the only jobs that are available. Yeah, I've stretched this analogy
beyond the breaking point.
Tom Olson
was on the debate team in high school, and we learned that this is
what you call loaded language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
I've heard the term now and again, but where did you hear it that is
bugging you in this case?
-T
go4tli
> I've heard the term now and again, but where did you hear it that is
> bugging you in this case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ismksjp10q0
Or, if you'd prefer a quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare.
When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America
based on the ninety-nine percent versus one percent (and those people
who have been most successful will be in the one percent), you have
opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is
entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that this sort of thing is atypical for politicians, who are quick
to trot out the idea that it's the poor's *fault* that they're poor --
they're lazy or not creative enough or whatever. Maybe that's true in
some cases, but I fear that painting with such a broad brush allows us
to rationalize away helping those we have been commanded to help. In
the name of God, no less, if this quote is any indication -- and I'd
argue that the fact that he's being seriously considered as a
Presidental candidate indicates just how relevant (and prevalent) the
indication is.
Tom Olson
this politics of envy business, but I do see how it's the beginnings
of one. If you listen to what he says after the follow-up question,
it gets better:
"You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms
and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the President has
made this part of his campaign rallies everywhere we go, or he goes,
we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and Wall
Street, and I think it's an attack-oriented approach and I think it'll
fail."
This is actually the semblance of a real argument. He's establishing
a criterion by which we can evaluate someone's political behavior, and
use it to tell if they're trying to use emotional appeals to envy as
opposed to making a valid criticism of wealth distribution in the
United States. In short, "quiet rooms and tax policy" == good,
"campaign rallies . . . talking about millionaires and billionaires
and Wall Street" == bad. Clearly he's not being substantial enough to
actually persuade anyone who thinks it through (quiet rooms? So, like
a private meeting with advisors? I guess?), but it's better than
nothing.
Personally, I agree with you about the policymaking of the situation,
since I myself am a leftist who's almost certainly voting for Obama.
I also think that some people on the right commit the same attribution
bias that people on the left do about wealth and how it's allocated.
If the leftists are envious, the opposite sin is clearly greed.
I guess I'm trying to say that I don't blame you for getting upset,
because this stuff really matters. People really are suffering, and
Mitt Romney's half-baked 90 seconds on the Today show doesn't help
anything. The real trick is to accept the crazy from the other side,
and stay cool enough that you don't actually give them crazy back.
Lord knows, there's enough crazy to go around on all sides.
-T
Steve Smith
one group we define as "bad", and give it to another we define as
"good." The illustration of the tunics is a plea for the poor. It does
not force the rich to give up their excess, it asks them to do what is
right. Jesus was not calling for Rome to resolve the disparity. By
taking money through taxes, we are threatening to send armed IRS
agents, or Roman Guards to take what we demand, if it is not given.
Perhaps the light shining on the current disparity is a reflection on
the failing of the Church to do as we are called?
-SteveS
go4tli
> Ah, I see. I don't think he's making a complete, clear argument for
> this politics of envy business, but I do see how it's the beginnings
> of one.
opportunities in just these ninety seconds to explain whether he
thought the division between "the 99 percent" and "the 1 percent" was
always about envy or could ever be about justice ("fairness"). It was
*the point of the questions*. And twice, he asserted that it was
*only* an "envy-oriented" attack on "millionaires and billionaires and
executives and Wall Street". The response you quoted was after a
question that *specifically asked* if there were any "fair questions
[...] without it being seen as envy". The response you quoted doesn't
seem to indicate that he thought the answer was "yes" and that there
were ways to determine when it's about fairness and not envy -- only
that he thought the discussion shouldn't be something discussed by
Presidential hopefuls.
He didn't seem to be setting up criteria for determining when the
motivation is envy and when it's something else. He seemed to be
asserting that it *could only ever be* envy. He never asserted that
talking about it only behind closed doors was okay *because it is more
appropriate to talk about it this way*. His response is
indistinguishable from someone who thinks it ought to be discussed
only behind closed doors because it is *shameful*.
Considering that we're living in a time when income inequality is at
its worst level since the Great Depression, this seems a rather
parochial view. It's a serious problem, and deserves discussion.
> Personally, I agree with you about the policymaking of the situation,
> since I myself am a leftist who's almost certainly voting for Obama.
my mind often boils down to whether or not politicians are even
considering acting on the problem, and if so, what ideas they have.
In this light, Romney seemed not only to try to silence open
discussion, but to cast aspersions on any candidate who would bother
to raise these questions in public.
> The real trick is to accept the crazy from the other side,
> and stay cool enough that you don't actually give them crazy back.
> Lord knows, there's enough crazy to go around on all sides.
that the problem needs addressing.
There's no cool lost here. I'm certainly not pounding the keys or
even glowering at the screen. Just drawing attention to repeated and
blatant attempts to make speaking up for the powerless seem like a
reprehensible thing.
(In all likelihood, some *are* motivated by envy. But it seems an
enormous oversight to characterize all public discussion on the matter
this way, especially when you're specifically being asked if another
consideration might be fairness.)
go4tli
> What I don't understand is who has authority to confiscate wealth from
> one group we define as "bad", and give it to another we define as
> "good." The illustration of the tunics is a plea for the poor. It does
> not force the rich to give up their excess, it asks them to do what is
> right. Jesus was not calling for Rome to resolve the disparity. By
> taking money through taxes, we are threatening to send armed IRS
> agents, or Roman Guards to take what we demand, if it is not given.
> Perhaps the light shining on the current disparity is a reflection on
> the failing of the Church to do as we are called?
moment(1) -- but it seems odd to see the Romans as threatening and the
command of God as a mere suggestion.
Frankly, I don't see this as a question of "either or", but as "both
and". (Calling on the government doesn't absolve the church of *its*
responsibility, either -- and yes, I think the church has been
shirking its responsibility in this area(2), but that that's only
*part* of the problem.) Simple math shows that churches and
churchgoers cannot shoulder the burden alone (see below). Moreover,
even people without the slightest interest in following God were
rebuked because their society failed to care for the poor (e.g., Amos
and Ezekiel -- I can be more specific if you like). The ancient
Christian notion of "subsidiarity" recognizes that this is a
responsibility of *all* compassionate people in a free society, and
also recognizes that one group failing in its role will cause other
groups to fail in theirs.
With this in mind, consider Franklin Graham's words on the subject
about eight months ago:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A hundred years ago, the safety net, the social safety net, in the
country, was provided by the church. If you didn't have a job, you'd
go to your local church and ask the pastor if he knew somebody that
could hire him. If you were hungry, you went to the local church and
told them, 'I can't feed my family.' And the church would help you.
That's not being done. The government took that. And took it away
from the church.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-god-government/story?id=13446238
This is, frankly, completely made up. It makes up claims about some
fictional Golden Age of the past. It spins the whole thing as an
"either or" responsibility. It offers inflated claims about what the
capacity, scale, expertise, and effectiveness of the church were to
meet these needs in the past. It spins care for the poor as being
something the government took away from us good churchgoing folk. It
deliberately excludes the impressions of the ones receiving assistance
(consult "Salvation in the Slums: Evangelical Social Work 1865-1920"
by Norris Magnuson).
Many of the social programs we have were put in place by Christians
begging the government to help out during the late nineteenth/early
twentieth century. This seems odd if this is to be considered a
responsibility of the church *alone*, or if this were something the
church was handling well enough by itself until the government
intervened.
It also ignores simple math, as was pointed out to Wayne Flynt when he
tried to examine what it would mean for the church to carry this
burden alone in, say, Alabama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Flynt started making speeches about a just tax system in Alabama,
he was accused of wanting government to solve all the problems.
"When people insisted that I was a socialist, that I wanted government
to solve all the problems, I would offer this alternative," said
Flynt. "OK, I accept your argument. There are 10,000 communities of
faith -- Muslim, Jewish, Baptist, Baha'i, Buddhist, Shintoist -- in
Alabama... Let's divide 10,000 communities of faith into the 740,000
[poor] people."
He asked, "How many does your church get?"
The retired Auburn history professor pointed out that most of those
faith communities had about 100 members. That meant that each faith
community would get between 50 and 100 poor people to look after.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/sacred-texts-social-duty-cms-16512
This raises interesting questions about caring for one's neighbor as
oneself, actually. :)
So yes, let the church do this. It must. It's part of the church's
*job*. But not *only* the churches. And let the government do it.
It's part of its job as caring for the governed, if Biblical passages
on justice for the poor are to be believed. But not *only* the
government. Either left to handle the job on its own would find
itself stretched beyond its capacity and its competence; either one
granted permission to *avoid* helping would be able to leverage this
permission to exploit the powerless.
So who has authority? Well, I think Scripture makes it plain (Romans
13) that government has power to execute justice. If you're a person
whose loved one has died from an easily-treatable ailment, the fact
that you couldn't afford it while others clearly and easily could is
going to seem like injustice writ large. In any event, the
redistribution schemes of the market (left to its current devices) are
clearly failing, since they've allowed the top one percent of earners
to get twenty-four percent of the income and an even larger percentage
of the wealth. This alone should indicate that some bad decisions
have been made somewhere, and things need to be sorted out, and the
sooner, the better.
(Frankly, the whole "solution" of resolving it through compulsion and
taxes seems like a cop-out; I'd rather get people to shoulder their
responsibility with a smile on their face. Compulsion and taxes seem
like the "too easy" way to do it. However, they have the advantage of
being quick; changing people's hearts, even when it's possible, is
rarely done in enough time to feed a starving man. I'm also, I must
confess, at a loss to come up with ways to get people to fulfill their
responsibility *without* making it, to some degree, compulsory;
perhaps those more creative than I could turn their attention to the
problem.)
(Please note, too, while I'm speaking parenthetically, that I don't
think the programs in place are perfect -- far from it. And I do
agree that the church isn't doing its job with respect to the poor.
But I don't want to flip to the opposite extreme and say that it
should be *only* the church's job, which is the rhetoric I've been
hearing from places like Franklin Graham and Marvin Olansky.)
----------
(1) God does, however, see governments even of powers uninterested in
following Him as having a responsibility to care for the poor. This
is a recurring theme in the Old Testament when His prophets point out
which countries have been wicked.
----------
(2) Not to mention that, historically, churches have also decided that
if you're gay, or brown, or a woman, or any number of unacceptable
qualifiers, they don't have to help at all. Part of me fears that,
based on this history, *some* people are using the cry "Let the
churches take care of charity!" to attempt to keep *their* money from
going to *those* people. Frankly, I'd be loath to call any giving
laced with this kind of favoritism "charity". But that's a rant for
another time.
go4tli
thoughts, then, while we're bandying about the poor and caring for
them:
If you're like me, you grew up in an Evangelical home. You've heard
thousands of sermons. As a kid, you went to Christian school and
Christian camp and extracurricular Christian curricula ("Awana",
"Olympians", Sunday School, and so on and so on and so on). All of
these emphasized memorization of Scripture; many even had planned
lists of verses to memorize.
Now, some homework, which, when I did it, was enlightening. What
percentage of these planned verses expressed God's concern for the
poor?
What percentage of the *actual verses of Scripture* express God's
concern for the poor? (I'll wait. It's actually quite interesting.)
Does this mean something is out of whack with the way we're handing
God's message down to future generations?
I like to think of Henri Nouwen's characterization of Jesus as Someone
Who was not afraid to be "downwardly mobile":
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the center of our faith as Christians stands the mystery that God
chose to reveal his divinity to us by submitting himself unreservedly
to the downward pull. ... the one who was from the beginning with God
and who was God revealed himself as a small, impotent child; as a
refugee in Egypt; as an obedient adolescent and inconspicuous adult;
as a penitent disciple of the Baptizer; as a preacher from Galilee
followed by some simple fishermen; as a man who ate with sinners and
talked with strangers; as an outcast, a criminal, a threat to his
people. He moved from power to powerlessness, from greatness to
smallness, from success to failure, from strength to weakness, from
glory to ignominy. The whole life of Jesus of Nazareth was a life in
which all upward mobility was resisted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this wrench your perspective the way it does mine? Does it
reveal how starkly and unexpectedly *revolutionary* the person of
Jesus is?
"This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's
nature" (Hebrews 1:3). "We look at this Son and see the God who
cannot be seen" (Colossians 1:15). "It's in Christ that we find out
who we are and what we live for" (Ephesians 1:11). "Keep your eyes on
Jesus ... study how he did it" (Hebrews 12:2). "I have set you an
example that you should do as I have done" (John 13:15 -- Jesus
Himself)
Can we agree, as a church, that our *esteem for* and our *care for*
the poor has been lacking, and that we're long overdue for a return to
the way Christ saw it?
As I've said, as shameful as this oversight is, I don't think it
*absolves government* (or, more properly, society at large) from
responsibility.
Psalm 72:1: "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son
with your righteousness." Justice and righteousness are positive
aspects in the Bible, not merely something one somehow acquires from
the avoidance of doing wrong. Here's how Solomon goes on to expound
on what these qualities are like in verse four: "He will defend the
afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will
crush the oppressor. ..." Or his foreign policy (verse 12): "All
kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him." Why? See
verses 12-14: "For he will deliver the needy who cry out; the
afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and
the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from
oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight."
Not just *care* for the needy, but *special affection* for the needy
is *characteristic* of a government blessed by God. The leader of
this government doesn't care for the needy out of fear of retribution
or revolt if he does not; he cares for the needy because *they are
precious to him*.
Or consider the Prophets (dear God, the Prophets). Isaiah 1 indicts a
generation: "Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves
clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong.
Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the
cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." To whom were
these causes to be defended and pled, if not before a government with
the authority to correct them?
Or consider how God designed an economy in Leviticus. There was
private property as we understand it. And there was also the
redistribution of land equally among all families every fifty years.
There's no perpetual dynasty, no lasting underclass.
That's why God is cleverer than our current partisanship. Ask someone
on the right side of the aisle, and you'll hear that poverty and
wealth is determined by individual effort. Ask someone on the left,
and you'll hear that it's cultural inequality. According to
Scripture, *both* need to be addressed in the name of justice(1).
Individual effort should be rewarded, but not to the lasting expense
of others. Laziness or accident can bring loss, but not to one's
innocent grandchildren. We need to address (and Scripture does!) both
character and culture. Though God's instruction to our character can
be effectively addressed in the setting and social structure of a
church, culture is the domain of a government; it alone can ensure
that justice reaches to the least. (As I understand it, this is how
the Founding Fathers saw it -- they sought to protect the rights of
individuals by limiting corporate power. How different from modern
government, which seeks to enrich the country by increasing the power
of corporations at the *expense* of individuals!)
And let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Israel was a special
case, since they were supposed to follow God, and other governments
were not similarly liable.
According to Psalm 9:7, *all* governments will be judged on their
quality of care for the poor: "The LORD reigns forever; he has
established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in
righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The LORD is a
refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble." Here, we
see the *very same language* as above.
According to Daniel 4:27: "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my
advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness
by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity
will continue." The King of Babylon was no Israelite!
According to Proverbs 31:4-5, 8-9, King Lemuel -- a *north Arab*
monarch -- has been taught from childhood, "It is not for kings, O
Lemuel -- not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,
lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the
oppressed of their rights. Speak up for those who cannot speak for
themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and
judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy."
All governments are described in Romans 13 as established by God to
*do good* (and punish wrong). This is two-fold. Standing by while
the poor suffer is not good. Jesus Himself offered stern warning of
punishment for rich people who did it.
God clearly seems to see neglect of the poor as evil and worthy of
punishment. He also clearly seems to see government as responsible
for making sure that the rights of the poor are defended. Why would
He include these passages in His Word if people were *not* prone to
neglect the poor or deprive them of their rights? Why would He put
the responsibility onto government for correcting and preventing these
sins if it can do nothing to enforce them?
All that said, taxation seems like an *awfully* mild way to enforce
shared responsibility when people don't do it themselves. (I say
"mild" because I'm contrasting *taxing* the oppressor with *crushing*
the oppressor, as in Psalm 72. Could it be that by requiring others
who can be generous to be generous, we're saving them from a much more
terrible fate?) Taxation may not be our first choice, but *doing
nothing* seems even worse, a doubly egregious offense.
It seems clear to me that the proper response to the problem of
poverty is "All hands on deck!", not "Let *those* people do it all" or
"Let *us* do it all".
Finally, yes, if we make plans to help, some will abuse it. Limiting
abuse is challenging, important, and Scriptural. But anger towards
this abuse, though justified, should not be an excuse to abandon those
who suffer to their fate.
----------
(1) And that's also exactly why I'm not as clever as God. If
anything, I tend to react more vociferously to the right because
that's where a lot of modern American Christianity has allied itself.
In another few decades, when the pendulum swings the other way, I
expect I'll be reacting more vociferously to the left.
go4tli
> What I don't understand is who has authority to confiscate wealth from
> one group we define as "bad", and give it to another we define as
> "good."
defining one group as "bad" and the other group as "good". The good
to be found here is not in giving to people arbitrarily defined as
"good". The good is in using the resources of those with plenty to
help those who cannot help themselves(1).
The wealthy ignoring the poor -- or leaving the poor to their own
devices -- is a profound evil that God confronts directly over and
over, and never once does He justify His demand that the rich help the
poor (or that the government use its resources to do so, which would
inevitably have come from the people) by calling one group "bad" and
the other group "good".
Language like this is prone to make one think that there's such a
thing as the "deserving" poor, which also speaks to my Footnote (2)
above.
God gave government authority to correct injustices. I think that
when Jesus said that we ought to "render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's", He was *making a
point*, not merely trying to weasel out of a difficult religious
dilemma.
----------
(1) Again, current policies are *far from perfect* in this regard.
I'm all for reform. But I'm *not* for doing *nothing*.
Steve Smith
a country where the government would be small, and stay out of the way
of the people. I think that we, and our leaders have screwed this up
in small ways, and then in larger ways eventually leading to a
situation where the only solutions being presented are larger
government programs. If I read the Constitution correctly, any program
to benefit the poor would be up to the States. So if Alabama has more
poor than the Church can handle, then it's up to Alabama who best
understands her people to solve the issue.
Here are some examples of large government programs that harm the poor:
1. The war on drugs. There are classes of people that are unfairly
targeted by the application of "justice", while our own presidents
have experimented with illegal substances. This has also had the
effect of militarizing our police force. If you have not heard of
"Asset Forfeiture" it allows for the police to take whatever they want
from a suspected drug stop, and seize the assets without a trial or
charges, and use them to fund the police force.
2. The USDA, and the FDA. These agencies and programs have the effect
of protecting large companies like Tyson, and Monsanto which are
exploiting the poor, and the alien, and the farmers. It would be
illegal for me to grow food, and sell it to the poor, or a local
food-bank at cost. I could be severely harassed, and have my food
destroyed if I offered free dinners, and served food that I had grown.
3. The Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense.
These two agencies have managed to get the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows for the capture of Americans, on
American soil who are deemed terrorists, or associate with known
terrorists and detain them indefinitely. These two agencies take up an
enormous portion of the Federal Budget. If we gave that money back to
the people, would we have more charity? At the very least, we would
not be funding aggression, and political intervention against
sovereign nations (Afganastan, Iraq, Iran, Lybia)
I will grant that #3 and the NDAA may not be directly related to the
exploitation of the poor, except that it was signed just a few weeks
ago by President Obama, and further expands the police state. I can
envision an outcome that causes an expanding segment of poor and
exploited people, who no longer have a voice because even if they
wanted to speak out, the cost of doing so would be too high.
It is easy to enumerate large agencies that are causing harm, it is
not always easy to see the unintended consequences of policy
implemented by un-elected bureaucrats, and unintended consequences
from large multi-subject bills that are rushed through Congress. This
is why I think at the Federal level, a program to help the poor is
wrong. It creates a machine that tends to trample the very people it
is intended to help. While Social Security has it's benefits, it is
currently unfunded, and broken. What more evidence of this do you need
than the commercials on local TV about Lawyers that will help you get
the "benefits you deserve?"
-SteveS
go4tli
> I guess the angle I am coming from, is the Founding Fathers envisioned
> a country where the government would be small, and stay out of the way
> of the people. I think that we, and our leaders have screwed this up
> in small ways, and then in larger ways eventually leading to a
> situation where the only solutions being presented are larger
> government programs.
to help often end up getting damaged and corrupted and don't help as
well as they could (and may even end up actively harming). That's a
different issue, though, from claiming that the federal government
*ought* to do *nothing* with respect to this issue.
As I've mentioned before, I acknowledge that our system is far from
perfect and would advocate reform. (The first solution we should go
to should not automatically be "bigger programs". Why, in your mind,
*ought* the federal government to do *nothing*?
> government programs. If I read the Constitution correctly, any program
> to benefit the poor would be up to the States. So if Alabama has more
> poor than the Church can handle, then it's up to Alabama who best
> understands her people to solve the issue.
have shown that the Founding Fathers were specifically keen on
establishing a government that would ensure justice all the way down
("We the people [...] establish Justice, [...] *promote the general
welfare* [...]" (emphasis mine)). This combined with the Necessary
and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) would seem to give
the federal government the right to intervene directly when it comes
to attempting to rectify injustice.
But it seems that you understand differently. What makes you think
this is a state issue alone in the way our government is established?
More to the point, given Biblical criteria for what makes a good
government, *should* it be a state issue alone?
> Here are some examples of large government programs that harm the poor:
> 1. The war on drugs.
the poor. Please don't think that in my stance that the government
ought to help, I think we ought to turn a blind eye to abuses.
Part of the problem comes from two things, IMHO: (1) seeing the
government as unilaterally evil; and (2) seeing the government as an
entity distinct from the society it governs. These ideas are overly
simplistic, and threaten to replace old evils with new ones. In
examining our government, we need to apply our thoughts with the power
of a bulldozer and the precision of a scalpel.
(For example, given what I think I understand, I'd be all for
eliminating or seriously cutting (1) and (3), but (2) actually
performs a needed service on some level; the degree to which this
service can be or is being abused needs to be examined so that we
don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I despise the NDAA.)
> It is easy to enumerate large agencies that are causing harm, it is
> not always easy to see the unintended consequences of policy
> implemented by un-elected bureaucrats, and unintended consequences
> from large multi-subject bills that are rushed through Congress. This
> is why I think at the Federal level, a program to help the poor is
> wrong. It creates a machine that tends to trample the very people it
> is intended to help.
it shouldn't do it at all"?
If so, why even have a government in the first place? There are other
good things a government can (and, Biblically speaking, should) do
that our current government is prone to screw up. I think we would
suffer a harsher judgment if our response was to remove its ability to
do good than attempt to fix it -- and keep going back to fixing it,
since government is a limited resource (and that's what you *do* with
limited resources -- keep assessing your efficiency).
If not, then how is your stance materially different from mine ("It's
broken; let's fix it")?
Richard
- The Constitution is a great document.
- The original premise of the democratic system which seems to get overlooked today in all the debates from both sides: Government FOR the People BY the people. It is not Government for the 1% or the 99% it is for everyone. It is also not Government by an elite few who have a few million in the bank, or have social standing, or who run lobby groups etc... We would actually be better of in a Monarchist society in that case. So, if it is FOR the people what is wrong with the Government providing services for the people?
- Under The Constitution we all have the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. I don’t think we can argue that under the current situation many don’t have a chance to even get that right. For example using health care as an issue...if one can’t afford it or have access to it then none of these three statements can be true.
- All Men (and woman) are created equally. I think sums up the last points perfectly.
- I agree with Steve that States “should” have the rights, but, that would create major inequality and some guidelines should be set.
- I makes me sick that all this money is spent on a Presidential Campaign. Imagine what good could that be put to. I mean the President has only a third of the power if that in this Country and is many ways a figurehead. If only people would pay as much attention to Congress, The House, and State elections. They have a much greater affect on our lives. The British PM has a lot more poor than the President.
- Now on to a pet peeve. I am SICK of the ignorant, uneducated comments about European Socialism and the fear mongering. Yes, they are definitely are more left leaning and shock horror, take care of the populace. Not perfect by any stretch. It is not that long ago that the UK had the most Conservative, right wing PM in the Western World since WWII. I could spend a lot more on this, but, won’t. I’ve lived in both worlds so have experienced both sides.
- My final thought is how do we as Christ following Christians act? My take is we have the responsibility to shed Christ’s light and teaching in all aspects that we come into contact with. That should also be in politics. In every issue I try to think what would He would want to do and how would He have reacted? Not any easy thing to do in a fallen world. What I do know is that He cared for the poor, the sick, the homeless, the fallen, the prostitutes, peace etc.. etc.. so yes that does colour my political views.
go4tli
must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or
in the darkness of destructive selfishness") Day, I think it relevant
to contrast some of Dr. King's words with those of Mitt Romney ("You
know, I think it's about envy. It's about class warfare"). This
comes from his "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution" sermon,
which looks at the parable of Lazarus and Dives (which tradition tells
us is the name of the "rich man" in Jesus parable in Luke 16:19-31).
Criticism of irresponsible wealth is not about envy. Abraham did not
envy Dives. Neither did Jesus. Most tellingly, neither did Lazarus.
But I'll step aside and let the more eloquent man speak:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus told a parable one day, and he reminded us that a man went to
hell because he didn't see the poor. His name was Dives. He was a
rich man. And there was a man by the name of Lazarus who was a poor
man, but not only was he poor, he was sick. Sores were all over his
body, and he was so weak that he could hardly move. But he managed to
get to the gate of Dives every day, wanting just to have the crumbs
that would fall from his table. And Dives did nothing about it. And
the parable ends saying, "Dives went to hell, and there were a fixed
gulf now between Lazarus and Dives."
There is nothing in that parable that said Dives went to hell because
he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against all
wealth. It is true that one day a rich young ruler came to him, and
he advised him to sell all, but in that instance Jesus was prescribing
individual surgery and not setting forth a universal diagnosis. And
if you will look at that parable with all of its symbolism, you will
remember that a conversation took place between heaven and hell, and
on the other end of that long-distance call between heaven and hell
was Abraham in heaven talking to Dives in hell.
Now Abraham was a very rich man. If you go back to the Old Testament,
you see that he was the richest man of his day, so it was not a rich
man in hell talking with a poor man in heaven; it was a little
millionaire in hell talking with a multimillionaire in heaven. Dives
didn't go to hell because he was rich; Dives didn't realize that his
wealth was his opportunity. It was his opportunity to bridge the gulf
that separated him from his brother Lazarus. Dives went to hell
because he was passed by Lazarus every day and he never really saw
him. He went to hell because he allowed his brother to become
invisible. Dives went to hell because he maximized the minimum and
minimized the maximum. Indeed, Dives went to hell because he sought
to be a conscientious objector in the war against poverty.
And this can happen to America, the richest nation in the world -- and
nothing's wrong with that -- this is America's opportunity to help
bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is
whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What
is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid
of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also note that Jesus Himself did not seem to think it necessary to
explain why Dives' actions -- or, more accurately, his *doing nothing*
-- was reprehensible in light of Lazarus' plight. He seems to think
we should instinctively understand how terrible it is to do nothing in
the face of poverty.
Addendum: Richard! Good to hear from you! Have you found a church
yet?
> I agree with Steve that States “should” have the rights, but,
> that would create major inequality and some guidelines
> should be set.
which showed that the states which tend to lean towards opposing
government aid to states also tend to be the ones which receive the
most aid from the federal government; in a very real sense, they get
more back from the federal government than they send *to* the federal
government. Conversely, the states which tend to lead towards
supporting government aid to states also tend to be the ones which
receive less aid from the federal government -- ironically supporting
people who don't think the support is a good thing.
This seems to speak to me of the value of giving -- even *compulsory*
giving -- on one's generosity. But there must be a thousand ways to
interpret this, and I'll freely admit that this appeals to my
preferences. :)
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: go4tli
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:09 PM
To: CNX-men
Subject: Re: When Political Rhetoric Turns Strange and Ugly
Addendum: Richard! Good to hear from you! Have you found a church
yet?
Almost :)
go4tli
On Jan 17, 4:39 pm, "Richard" <rco...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Government FOR the People BY the people. It is not Government for the 1% or the 99% it is for everyone.
versus the 99 percent is an attempt to show just how unequal income
inequality has become. There aren't many who would begrudge the rich
owning more -- but I think it's also the case that people are
generally unaware of how completely imbalanced it has become.
Pointing out that the top 1% have 24% of the income and over 40% of
the wealth shows this rather starkly in our sound-bite-hungry, zero-
attention-span culture.
This split is not meant to indicate that the government *should* exact
justice differently for different groups. It's meant to show that
things *are* different for different groups, drawing attention to the
problem in hopes of fixing it.
(Seriously, if *I* were guilty of fiscal irresponsibility on the level
of some of the politicians and bank owners who've come to light
lately, I'd be in prison for the rest of my life, not "bailed out".)
> So, if it is FOR the people what is wrong with the Government providing
> services for the people?
was using their fortune to create infrastructure that we're still
coasting on (and that is falling apart around us). Even the Founding
Fathers understood this; Franklin in particular was able to play the
Philadelphia legislature like a fiddle, using common funds to build
all sorts of things for the common good (hospitals, libraries,
museums, and so on).
> Under The Constitution we all have the “right to life, liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness”.
is still a good one. :)
> For example using health care as an issue...if one can’t afford it or
> have access to it then none of these three statements can be true.
could express a desire to set up a program for health care and people
would refuse the *principle*. I can see refusing a particular
implementation of it, but some seem dead set against the whole idea...
in spite of the fact that the way it is now is clearly broken.
> I makes me sick that all this money is spent on a Presidential Campaign.
> Imagine what good could that be put to. I mean the President has only
> a third of the power if that in this Country and is many ways a
> figurehead. If only people would pay as much attention to Congress, The
> House, and State elections. They have a much greater affect on our
> lives.
issues I tend to write them *about*, however, are less amenable to
this kind of debate. The Presidential race tends to bring out all the
hot-button issues. The ones I think are important, the ones that
actually determine most of my interaction with my government, tend to
fly under the radar quite a lot(1).
> I am SICK of the ignorant, uneducated comments about European Socialism
> and the fear mongering.
"left" and "right" are more like "central right" and "far right". We
don't have two opposing ideologies in this country; we have two
business parties.
It's also the case (and I've said this before) that "socialism" is
often used as a meaningless insult. Calling a politician a
"socialist" is more of a tag that says the speaker doesn't like him
than any indication that the politician is *actually a socialist*.
I'd be surprised if a lot of people who use the word even know what it
means.
Same with "communist". Or "atheist". (I'm thinking of Newt Gingrich
expressing his worries that if things keep going the way they're
going, we're going to be an atheist country led by Islamic rule.)
Names aren't allowed to mean things anymore beyond "this person, I
like" or "that person makes me sad".
That said, there are plenty of functional societies we can point to
that demonstrate that *socialism isn't automatically a bad thing*.
Socialism isn't asking the government to run *everything*. But
there's a certain understanding that it will pick up the slack when
the market fails (and fail it has -- that's why we're in this mess!).
> That's all I have time for now. Keep debating.
get to hear from you again soon.
----------
(1) When Presidential campaign volunteers call me, I have fun asking
for the candidate's position on things *I* think are important but
which usually don't show up in political commercials. What's his
stance on education? Energy research? Scientific research? The
space program? Mass transportation? Infrastructure like the highway
system, the national power grid, and the sewers in our cities?
I also find it interesting how few volunteers seem able to
disambiguate between, for example, speaking at a teacher's union
meeting and being in favor of making education more competitive in the
global arena.
Steve Smith
about transparent anyways.
It's not that I believe the Federal Government should do nothing. I
think first it must adhere to the Constitution, and secondly "First,
do no harm." On the subject of the Constitution, the "general welfare"
clause has been used to explain authority for every whim Congress has.
This has also been extensively explored by our founding fathers, and
those that followed them. There are many who interpret this as an
"introduction" to Section 8, and not as a grant of power over and
above the powers explicitly enumerated in Section 8.
The bible speaks of denying the poor justice, through the law, and
through withholding justice.
Isaiah 10: 1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue
oppressive decrees, 2 to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold
justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and
robbing the fatherless.
We currently have both in this country. If we work to resolve these
issues first, then any solution to help the poor whether by the
Federal Government, the State, the Local Government, the community, or
the Church could be smaller, and potentially more effective. I am in
favor of small solutions, because they are more personal, less likely
to have corruption, and less likely to tie the hands of the helpers
with "bureaucratic red tape". You are much more likely to be diligent
with donations where you know the donors, than if you have a large
"budget" where you don't need to think about where the money comes
from. You are also more likely to look into a situation, and see the
issues rather than the lack of qualifications for need. I agree that
there can be abuses even in small systems, we've all heard of
embezzlement in the small family business. When small systems fail,
they are easy to restructure, replace, and bridge the gap caused by
their loss than multi-billion dollar centralized programs. I am
speaking of behavior by reasonably prudent people, which is the first
thing that is lost when a "system" is put into place.
I'm getting a bit off topic here, so I'll try to bring it back in line.
The real discussion here is how do we effectively care for the poor?
How do we measure our success? How are we doing? I think we should be
measuring these individually, locally in our towns, counties, and
across the state. Innovative and creative solutions will be found if
we have many options being tested in many different communities. The
best solutions can be used where they are found to work best, and
replace the solutions that are failing. I can choose what I support,
what I do, and why.
-SteveS
go4tli
> The bible speaks of denying the poor justice, through the law, and
> through withholding justice.
that this is inappopriate, and enough moral sense to want to see
abuses stopped. As I mentioned before, government is a limited
resource, and requires constant maintenance and supervision to be sure
we're handling it properly.
> There are many who interpret this as an
> "introduction" to Section 8, and not as a grant of power over and
> above the powers explicitly enumerated in Section 8.
to Congress to enact laws which aid it in the purposes for which it
was created. The purposes for which it was created -- in fact, the
purposes for which the *government generally* was created -- are
specifically enumerated in the Preamble. In other words, the Preamble
is an explanation for the powers being enumerated. It does not grant
extra power, but neither does it restrict activity to only those
things specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a document.
> We currently have both in this country.
> If we work to resolve these
> issues first, then any solution to help the poor whether by the
> Federal Government, the State, the Local Government, the community, or
> the Church could be smaller, and potentially more effective.
enacted are harmful. However, though this amounts to picking nits, I
see the idea of fixing one "first" both as an oversimplification and
as potential to create harm, simply because the needs of the poor are
both immediate and perpetual. Starving people need to eat *now*, and
they will need to eat as time goes on. People need adequate housing
and a living wage *now*, and they will need a place to live and money
as time goes on. The problems we're talking about are so deep and
convoluted that I prefer an approach that says "Fix this *while* we
fix that" over "Fix this *before* we fix that". (After all, great
societies are capable of doing more than one complex and time-
consuming thing at a time.)
> How do we measure our success? How are we doing? I think we should be
> measuring these individually, locally in our towns, counties, and
> across the state. Innovative and creative solutions will be found if
> we have many options being tested in many different communities. The
> best solutions can be used where they are found to work best, and
> replace the solutions that are failing. I can choose what I support,
> what I do, and why.
our government's effectiveness earlier.
You make powerful points about the effectiveness of smaller programs
in reaching those in need. At first blush, this seems like it would
need to be balanced with the fact that some places are simply less
*able* to handle the problem than others -- and under those
circumstances, I don't think it inappropriate for those more able to
help to do so. As always, constant vigilance to keep unnecessary
bureaucracy at bay as much as possible.
(It occurs to me that we may be butting hard up against some of the
weaknesses of a representative government -- namely, its bureaucracy,
and its lack of efficiency, especially when one compares it to a
dictatorship. However, the latter is much more easily corrupted, and
is potentially even *more* distant from the needs of its people.)
Steve Smith
> On Jan 18, 10:34 am, Steve Smith <smiths7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The bible speaks of denying the poor justice, through the law, and
>> through withholding justice.
>
> Okay, but I would hope you'd grant me enough common sense to *know*
> that this is inappopriate, and enough moral sense to want to see
> abuses stopped. As I mentioned before, government is a limited
> resource, and requires constant maintenance and supervision to be sure
> we're handling it properly.
Sorry, Just trying to apply a context for the rest of my argument, and
get us on common ground. I absolutely grant that you understand the
Bible's position on the poor and justice, and you agree that it is
right and true.
I disagree, that government is a limited resource. I have never
suffered from a lack of government, and I see it only limited by the
consent of the people. If we were willing to put up with 95% taxation
rates on income, government would be glad to help.
>
>> There are many who interpret this as an
>> "introduction" to Section 8, and not as a grant of power over and
>> above the powers explicitly enumerated in Section 8.
>
> Well, right, but Section 8 (of Article I) *specifically grants* power
> to Congress to enact laws which aid it in the purposes for which it
> was created. The purposes for which it was created -- in fact, the
> purposes for which the *government generally* was created -- are
> specifically enumerated in the Preamble. In other words, the Preamble
> is an explanation for the powers being enumerated. It does not grant
> extra power, but neither does it restrict activity to only those
> things specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a document.
>
I think we'll continue to disagree on Article 1 Section 8. I'm ok with
that, I know my position tends to be a bit outside the commonly
accepted definition. Here is a description from Wikipedia that
supports my understanding: (offline today. Reminder to write the
critters about SOPA and PIPA)
"The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section
8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of
the United States Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the
powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit
restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the
Constitutional text. The 10th Amendment states that all prerogatives
not vested in the federal government nor prohibited of the states are
reserved to the states and to the people, which means that the only
prerogatives of the Congress (as well as the Executive Branch and the
Judicial Branch) are limited to those granted by the Constitution of
the United States."
I will acknowledge that this is not the interpretation currently held
by any but a small minority of our Congress, and not held by the
President either.
>
>> If we work to resolve these
>> issues first, then any solution to help the poor whether by the
>> Federal Government, the State, the Local Government, the community, or
>> the Church could be smaller, and potentially more effective.
>
> I trust you know that *I* know that some of the laws Congress has
> enacted are harmful. However, though this amounts to picking nits, I
> see the idea of fixing one "first" both as an oversimplification and
> as potential to create harm, simply because the needs of the poor are
> both immediate and perpetual. Starving people need to eat *now*, and
> they will need to eat as time goes on. People need adequate housing
> and a living wage *now*, and they will need a place to live and money
> as time goes on. The problems we're talking about are so deep and
> convoluted that I prefer an approach that says "Fix this *while* we
> fix that" over "Fix this *before* we fix that". (After all, great
> societies are capable of doing more than one complex and time-
> consuming thing at a time.)
Yes, I've taken some idealistic stances here. Fixing the current
situation as a pre-requisite to doing good is unrealistic. I have not
seen anything approaching realistic reform to any of our current
programs either. I am concerned that if we continue to build upon a
flawed system that adds to the problem we are trying to address, we
cannot hope to have the positive effect we hope to achieve.
If we do ANYTHING with a budget deficit, we are not doing this
"ourselves" we are forcing our children to pay for the solution to
today's problems. If we were convinced the problems were solvable, you
might argue that we are leaving them a country in better condition
than we found it. But what have we spent our current budget on that
was so important that we spent every last cent, and then some?
I agree that people need adequate housing, but that brought us the
department of HUD, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. These are a few more
examples of how well meaning efforts end up having harmful unintended
consequences.
I agree that living wages are a good thing. I think that government
regulation has done more to harm living wages than it has to help it.
Employers are only hiring part-time workers because they don't want to
pay for the benefits required of full-time employees by the
government. They pay a minimum wage based upon the standard the
government dictates. By having employer subsidized health insurance
tied to employment, we are essentially locking out those who are not
employed full time, and creating an dis-incentive for companies to
have full-time employees that they have an added burden for.
I guess what I am begging for here are some good examples of programs
that were broken, and were fixed. I would also like to see some
examples of programs that have worked well at the Federal level.
Given my interpretation of the Constitution, even if I believed the
right thing would be done, I would not allow it without a
constitutional amendment authorizing it. This I suppose is what got me
to jump in on this conversation in the first place.
>
>> How do we measure our success? How are we doing? I think we should be
>> measuring these individually, locally in our towns, counties, and
>> across the state. Innovative and creative solutions will be found if
>> we have many options being tested in many different communities. The
>> best solutions can be used where they are found to work best, and
>> replace the solutions that are failing. I can choose what I support,
>> what I do, and why.
>
> Yes, I agree, which is why I mentioned the need to constantly revisit
> our government's effectiveness earlier.
>
> You make powerful points about the effectiveness of smaller programs
> in reaching those in need. At first blush, this seems like it would
> need to be balanced with the fact that some places are simply less
> *able* to handle the problem than others -- and under those
> circumstances, I don't think it inappropriate for those more able to
> help to do so. As always, constant vigilance to keep unnecessary
> bureaucracy at bay as much as possible.
>
> (It occurs to me that we may be butting hard up against some of the
> weaknesses of a representative government -- namely, its bureaucracy,
> and its lack of efficiency, especially when one compares it to a
> dictatorship. However, the latter is much more easily corrupted, and
> is potentially even *more* distant from the needs of its people.)
Representative government, I fear, makes me culpable for all that the
government does in my name, with either my consent, or the consent of
a majority of my peers.
-S
go4tli
> Sorry, Just trying to apply a context for the rest of my argument, and
> get us on common ground. I absolutely grant that you understand the
> Bible's position on the poor and justice, and you agree that it is
> right and true.
common ground. I can see how I may have sounded offended (stupid text-
only interface!), but I assure you that was not the case.
> I disagree, that government is a limited resource. I have never
> suffered from a lack of government, and I see it only limited by the
> consent of the people. If we were willing to put up with 95% taxation
> rates on income, government would be glad to help.
the sense that we don't have as much as we want. I meant "limited" in
the "tragedy of the commons" sense, where it seems like there's more
than enough for any individual, but if all individuals are
indiscriminate in their use of the government, we'll find ourselves in
a situation where no one wins.
Kind of like any limited resource, in a sense. It seems like there's
so much oil that no one person needs to be careful. We *all* need to
be careful how we use it as a society, though, which translates into
personal responsibility.
All that said, if I were convinced that the government was using my
money properly and I had to endure a 95% tax rate for that to happen,
I'd prefer the good, expensive government to the corrupt, cheaper
one. I see no reason to think that higher taxation rates lead to more
moral governments, though.
> I think we'll continue to disagree on Article 1 Section 8. I'm ok with
> that, I know my position tends to be a bit outside the commonly
> accepted definition. Here is a description from Wikipedia that
> supports my understanding: (offline today. Reminder to write the
> critters about SOPA and PIPA)
Ah! Light finally dawns on Marblehead.
Okay. I admit to being curious, though -- what do you see as the
function of the Necessary and Proper Clause? If it's not to allow
Congress to make laws beyond those specifically enumerated in the
Constitution, what is it for?
> I will acknowledge that this is not the interpretation currently held
> by any but a small minority of our Congress, and not held by the
> President either.
historical decisions that led to the current understanding?
> Yes, I've taken some idealistic stances here. Fixing the current
> situation as a pre-requisite to doing good is unrealistic. I have not
> seen anything approaching realistic reform to any of our current
> programs either. I am concerned that if we continue to build upon a
> flawed system that adds to the problem we are trying to address, we
> cannot hope to have the positive effect we hope to achieve.
that's generally because reforms I want to see would be sweeping and
drastic, and in our current system, almost anything sweeping and
drastic would be political suicide.
I've consoled myself somewhat that I cannot vote my ideals -- I can
only hint towards them in our current system. So I have to hope that
incremental improvements are better than no improvements at all.
> If we do ANYTHING with a budget deficit, we are not doing this
> "ourselves" we are forcing our children to pay for the solution to
> today's problems. If we were convinced the problems were solvable, you
> might argue that we are leaving them a country in better condition
> than we found it. But what have we spent our current budget on that
> was so important that we spent every last cent, and then some?
number of things that I believe are seriously *under*funded if we
expect the federal government to take care of them in any serious way.
That said, it's been shown that increasing the nominal tax rate by 5%
to 36% -- not up to 61% like it was in the boom years of the 1950s,
mind, significantly less than that -- would completely remove the
deficit in less than a decade. That assumes some ideal things (like
no loophole seeking, or the government coming up with other "uses" for
the money, and so on). The deficit is not an insurmountable problem,
or even a problem we're forced to put off for a generation if we're
determined to get rid of it.
And yes, I'm all for leaving the country better than we found it. :)
> I agree that people need adequate housing, but that brought us the
> department of HUD, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. These are a few more
> examples of how well meaning efforts end up having harmful unintended
> consequences.
> I agree that living wages are a good thing. I think that government
> regulation has done more to harm living wages than it has to help it.
> Employers are only hiring part-time workers because they don't want to
> pay for the benefits required of full-time employees by the
> government. They pay a minimum wage based upon the standard the
> government dictates. By having employer subsidized health insurance
> tied to employment, we are essentially locking out those who are not
> employed full time, and creating an dis-incentive for companies to
> have full-time employees that they have an added burden for.
don't even need to be paid minimum wage. It's a system that stinks,
but it would be worse to try to voice my protest by, say, refusing to
tip.
In much the same way, I don't want to starve *genuine* efforts to help
in efforts to trim the fat. It's a tough balance to strike.
> I guess what I am begging for here are some good examples of programs
> that were broken, and were fixed. I would also like to see some
> examples of programs that have worked well at the Federal level.
I don't know that it's possible for *all* inefficiency to be removed.
This is why I think it's better to have as much competition as
possible -- have corporations competing with state government
competing with federal government. Especially since the Civil War,
this has been prevented by a radically strengthened federal
government. I'd like to see state rights expanded and federal
governments contracted, personally. As long as one power is holding
all the power, the tendency to abuse it will be tough to avoid.
> Given my interpretation of the Constitution, even if I believed the
> right thing would be done, I would not allow it without a
> constitutional amendment authorizing it. This I suppose is what got me
> to jump in on this conversation in the first place.
My first reaction, I have to admit, is that I fear that would reduce
the adaptability of the government. In addition to the concept of
checks and balances (which I fear isn't used *enough*), the concept
that the government should be able to *change how it operates in
response to circumstances* is, IMHO, one of the more brilliant aspects
of the government we have. It's kind of a tacit recognition that no
matter *how* brilliant the creators of a government are, they're still
going to produce a flawed system.
> Representative government, I fear, makes me culpable for all that the
> government does in my name, with either my consent, or the consent of
> a majority of my peers.
I mean, it's always possible for one's elected officials not to
fulfill their promises, or to do things you never would have
imagined. (That's the position I'm in with our current President.)
It seems like reaching a bit too far to make one responsible for
anything beyond trying one's best in the system one has; refer to my
"Is It Ever *More Moral* Not to Vote?" thread.
Here's a quote I've mentioned before, but I think it's still relevant:
"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing
between the disastrous and the unpalatable." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
go4tli
> to 36% -- not up to 61% like it was in the boom years of the 1950s,
> mind, significantly less than that
always check my sources first.
The idea instead is to raise taxes on the rich (i.e., incomes over $1
million) and corporations to 1961 levels, which represents an increase
of about $716 billion per year. (Instead, the rich and corporations
are paying the lowest nominal tax rate in a generation -- indeed, we
enjoy lower taxation than almost *every other developed nation on the
planet*.) The nominal tax rate in the fifties on the highest incomes
was *ninety percent*; in 1961, it was 43.1%. (It would seem that the
impact of taxes on business' ability to produce is much more complex
than "higher taxes mean less production".)
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/277857/corporations-rich-taxes-debt-disappear/
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnecessary_austerity_unnecessary_government_shutdown
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/09/157448/main-street-richest-taxes/
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html
That's why I prefer written debates; it allows you to do some
homework. :)
That said, I think the answer is best found in reeling in the federal
government some and increasing the power of state governments(1), but
not on removing programs outright so much as reformation -- which, I
also have to admit, is based more on "a little movement in this
direction seems to have done good, historically speaking; perhaps more
is better" than on actual, concrete historical examples where it's
been fully and perfectly realized that I can think of (e.g., Why the
FDA is generally a good idea, even though it's flawed in practice; or
why social welfare programs are a good thing to have, even though
they're flawed in practice. It may be that asking for a flawless
government program is an unreasonable standard). Changes lie these
will take money, naturally. But we're not paying much now, especially
if "we" is the rich and corporations; I think we can handle it.
In the name of the sort of "full disclosure" that caused you to
announce your libertarianism, I'll try to define where I stand as best
I can. It's complicated. I'm borrowing heavily from another post I
made.
I am an individual libertarian. By that, I mean that the individual
should have lots of personal freedom. *Far* more freedom than they
enjoy currently in the good ol' U S of A.
I am a social liberal. By that, I mean that I want the government to
help people who can't help themselves, and do what corporations or
individuals can't, won't, or shouldn't be trusted with.
I am a governmental conservative. By that, I mean that I want the
government to be as big as it needs to be and absolutely no bigger,
and that it shouldn't be the biggest gorilla in the room.
Of course, none of these are independent from each other. Freedoms,
in particular, are tricky. Just because you *can* do something
doesn't mean you *should*. I don't want the government to help when
it doesn't have to, to minimize taking advantage of that help.
And sometimes there's a real tension, even *inside* the stances I try
to maintain. I hate paying taxes, so I want smaller government; but I
love nice roads, clean water, responsible food and drug preparation
and distribtion, decent educational opportunities, and the space
program. I think people have a right to defend themselves and their
loved ones, so owning a gun ought to be okay; but I also know that
many people aren't smart enough and/or stable enough to own a gun, so
I don't think *everyone* ought to be able to own *any* gun.
So what possible sense can be made out of all of this?
That's precisely why I think it's so necessary to try to teach people
to *think*. People need to understand that their ideas in one area
have consequences in others, that there are balances in life, and that
the real world is nuanced.
When I hear talking heads on the radio -- some of them even,
regrettably, from the pulpit -- what I hear are big, chunky ideas,
carved out whole and dropped in front of people to be swallowed
without question or protest. They offer no sense of balance; it's all
one way or the other, and boundaries are sharp, well-defined, and
impenetrable.
But when I look at the world around me, things are rich, subtle,
diverse, confusing, poetic, complex, and much bigger than I am (or my
pathetic attempts to understand them). Issues, and the impact they
have on *other* issues, often need to be understood individually, not
as part of a particular one-word political outlook.
This all has the curious effect of making life a treacherous path.
People who want all thoughts to conform to those of Group A or Group B
have emphasized the *road signs* over the *journey*, as if the name of
the state that we're driving through on the way to our destination is
more significant than the view out the window. It also means that one
arrives at new understandings all the time, and it's more thrilling,
awe-inspiring, and perspective-altering as these new understandings
sink in and make their connections to other ideas.
It's difficult to remember that when people will twist the truth to
make it sound like history and fate are on their side, or when people
resort to name-calling or doom-predicting or naysaying to try to exert
mental control over as many people as they can.
That's why I'm so grateful for Fred. I really get the sense that he's
trying to figure it out, too, and that he understands why it can be
really tough sometimes to puzzle through the right thing to do, think,
or be.
I also have a healthy respect for the scientific method, in which
ideas are subjected to merciless onslaught in order to find out what's
left standing and still consistent with the facts after everything we
can think of has been brought to bear. My first reaction, when a new
point of view is presented, is to see how well it stands up to
explaining "old data" (any new theory *also* has to be able to explain
observations up to this point, not just look pretty on paper as a nice
*potential* way to do things). It may be that this new idea is
*better* than my current notions at explaining things, but I want to
*see* that that's true, because with my terribly limited knowledge on
these matters, I'm easily fooled, and this forms a decent failsafe.
Unfortunately, in my experience, this is how political conversations
tend to go -- if I can replace "political system" with "sausage
maker", to borrow from Otto von Bismarck's wonderful insight(2):
THEM: "Behold the wondrous beauty of my sausage maker! It has an
elegant and simple mechanism, does it not? You must agree that it
would make the most wonderful and tasty sausages!"
ME: "No, wait, hold on. I agree that it's interesting, but can I
see the sausages?"
THEM: "Your problem is your scientific bias. Not everything is
science, you know."
ME: "I'm just testing your reason. I want to know if the machine
really makes decent sausages."
THEM: "Can you point to a flaw in my argument that it can produce
sausages?"
ME: "Maybe. I don't know. All I want to know is if it makes
sausages. Look, I even have meat. Why don't we feed it in and taste
the results?"
THEM: "And sully my beautiful machine with your (frankly, rather
ordinary) meat, when a machine like mine demands the best?"
ME: "*You* said this machine makes good sausages. I want to see
them."
THEM: "Are you questioning my ingredients?"
ME: =sigh= "No. I'm questioning *whether or not it makes
sausages*. That should be a pretty easy question to settle, and
pretty important, given what the machine is for."
THEM: "You have failed to attack my premises or my logic. Therefore,
I'm right. You lose."
ME: "Don't be so melodramatic. Show me the sausages."
THEM: "Sausages must inevitably come from a machine as fine as this
one, wouldn't you agree?"
ME: "I'm asking you to *show me*. If you can't, I have to look
elsewhere."
THEM: "That's the problem with your overly-pragmatic outlook. You
have no appreciation for the beauty of my machine."
ME: "Thanks for your time."
That's essentially why I'm asking for historical evidence that led to
our current understanding. I'd also ask for historical indications
that point to what you perceive the Founding Fathers wanted. My
information is sadly lacking, so I need to know how (in your view) we
got to where we are, why we shouldn't be there, and why a *very*
limited Congress is the answer to a lot of those problems.
If possible, I'd like historical indications that "a little in this
direction was good, and more might be better".
----------
(1) I'm not really firmly wedded to this idea, I must admit, primarily
because I have fewer examples that I can think of to point to in order
to predict what it will do.
----------
(2) "Je weniger die Leute darüber wissen, wie Würste und Gesetze
gemacht werden, desto besser schlafen sie nachts" -- or, roughly, "The
less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they
sleep at night".
Steve Smith
> The idea instead is to raise taxes on the rich (i.e., incomes over $1
> million) and corporations to 1961 levels, which represents an increase
> of about $716 billion per year. (Instead, the rich and corporations
> are paying the lowest nominal tax rate in a generation -- indeed, we
> enjoy lower taxation than almost *every other developed nation on the
> planet*.) The nominal tax rate in the fifties on the highest incomes
> was *ninety percent*; in 1961, it was 43.1%. (It would seem that the
> impact of taxes on business' ability to produce is much more complex
> than "higher taxes mean less production".)
>
This article proposes taxation at 91% rate, and it would only take a
DECADE to eliminate the debt.
> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/277857/corporations-rich-taxes-debt-disappear/
This article also uses the 91% rate for it's calculations.
> http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnecessary_austerity_unnecessary_government_shutdown
This article says "Their tax responsibilities have slowly collapsed
since the New Deal era" which I would
argue necessitated the "91%" tax rate seen in the 1960's as we payed
for those programs.
> http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/09/157448/main-street-richest-taxes/
I dislike a number of the charts in this article, here's the two I
dislike the most:
#5 Estate taxes. I have a problem with being forced to sell non-liquid
assets such as land, or a home to cover the taxes when you inherit an
estate, where most likely the asset triggering the tax is the land, or
home. Besides, the assets of an estate were acquired with taxable
income, and then have had property, or personal-property taxes on them
every year since their acquisition.
#10 "Tax breaks, and loopholes", This is the prime argument for a flat
tax, I'm not sure what they were getting at here.
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html
>
> That's why I prefer written debates; it allows you to do some
> homework. :)
>
> That said, I think the answer is best found in reeling in the federal
> government some and increasing the power of state governments(1), but
> not on removing programs outright so much as reformation -- which, I
Yes, this starts down the path of "New Federalism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_federalism which I would tend to
agree with.
> also have to admit, is based more on "a little movement in this
> direction seems to have done good, historically speaking; perhaps more
> is better" than on actual, concrete historical examples where it's
> been fully and perfectly realized that I can think of (e.g., Why the
> FDA is generally a good idea, even though it's flawed in practice; or
> why social welfare programs are a good thing to have, even though
> they're flawed in practice. It may be that asking for a flawless
> government program is an unreasonable standard). Changes lie these
> will take money, naturally. But we're not paying much now, especially
> if "we" is the rich and corporations; I think we can handle it.
I'll confess that my dislike for the FDA, and USDA have more to do
with what I have recently learned about the food supply in America.
The regulations that are designed to keep us safe crush local
business, and benefit Monsanto. This is another whole discussion.
>
> In the name of the sort of "full disclosure" that caused you to
> announce your libertarianism, I'll try to define where I stand as best
> I can. It's complicated. I'm borrowing heavily from another post I
> made.
>
> I am an individual libertarian. By that, I mean that the individual
> should have lots of personal freedom. *Far* more freedom than they
> enjoy currently in the good ol' U S of A.
>
> I am a social liberal. By that, I mean that I want the government to
> help people who can't help themselves, and do what corporations or
> individuals can't, won't, or shouldn't be trusted with.
>
This is where our views diverge, and we end up having this debate. I
don't think it's the government's job to help people. I think it
should avoid harming the poor, and stay out of the way. I'll agree
with you that corporations, and individuals can't, won't or shouldn't
be trusted to do some things. The flaw in my reasoning comes in when
you examine that if it's not the government who would be responsible
for these things, then who can be trusted. No one has proven that they
are capable to be trusted to do what is right (not even the church.)
>
> I am a governmental conservative. By that, I mean that I want the
> government to be as big as it needs to be and absolutely no bigger,
> and that it shouldn't be the biggest gorilla in the room.
>
Hahaha, All I see is a 300 pound gorilla. :-)
> Of course, none of these are independent from each other. Freedoms,
> in particular, are tricky. Just because you *can* do something
> doesn't mean you *should*. I don't want the government to help when
> it doesn't have to, to minimize taking advantage of that help.
>
> And sometimes there's a real tension, even *inside* the stances I try
> to maintain. I hate paying taxes, so I want smaller government; but I
> love nice roads, clean water, responsible food and drug preparation
> and distribtion, decent educational opportunities, and the space
> program. I think people have a right to defend themselves and their
> loved ones, so owning a gun ought to be okay; but I also know that
> many people aren't smart enough and/or stable enough to own a gun, so
> I don't think *everyone* ought to be able to own *any* gun.
>
This all seems reasonable to me, I'd have some minor objections but
they would be with big government agencies, not with the idea that
these things at some level are needed. When I explored the libertarian
ideals and principles, I realized that in order to get rid of the
things I disliked, there were things that I liked that would also have
to go. Once I was ok with that, it all fell into place.
Ok, so my view on the Constitution. Here's a few references from wiki
that sum up a lot of my understanding. There's also the book
"Nullification"
http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327092452&sr=8-1
which explains a lot of this in more detail, and with more references
that I could ever produce here. When I get my copy back, you can
borrow it if you're interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
I tend to lean towards "Strict constructionism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
Looking at the "Enumerated Powers Act" and the lack of Congressional
support for this, is what I would point to as the basis that our
current Congress does not have the same view of the constitution that
I do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_Powers_Act
(yes, wiki again, but I've been following the Enumerated Powers Act
since before it had a congressional sponsor)
I have had email responses from Representative David Price, in my
district that sited "general welfare" as the reason why laws he
supported were authorized by the Constitution.
I view "The New Deal" as largely unconstitutional. Some programs were
deemed unconstitutional, and canceled. Others should have been deemed
unconstitutional, but there are a few programs in there that appear to
be fully authorized by the enumerated powers (like the arts programs,
and the roads projects)
We should probably take this offline, and not clog up the list
further. I'm nowhere near the original topic at this point, and I'd
love to continue the discussion further.
-SteveS
go4tli
certainly be interested in, I'll try to keep this brief. But it
should be clear by now that I'm not that good at it.
On Jan 20, 4:40 pm, Steve Smith <smiths7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This article proposes taxation at 91% rate, and it would only take a
> DECADE to eliminate the debt.
table *specifically* cites a 43.1% rate (for individuals; 47.4% for
corporations) for people earning $1 million or more.
> >http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/277857/corporations-rich-...
> This article also uses the 91% rate for it's calculations.
mentioned exists.
> I'll confess that my dislike for the FDA, and USDA have more to do
> with what I have recently learned about the food supply in America.
> The regulations that are designed to keep us safe crush local
> business, and benefit Monsanto. This is another whole discussion.
are doing harm. I don't think the answer is outright abolishment,
though, since things like guaranteeing safe food and drug, and
requiring transparency about the contents of each, are a positive good
that came out of the UDSA/FDA. Granted, most people don't care and
don't do any investigation (hence another set of rants I could get
into against homeopathic and "alternative" medicine), but that doesn't
mean that requiring transparency about these things is bad.
> This is where our views diverge, and we end up having this debate. I
> don't think it's the government's job to help people.
disagreement. I think that's one of the things government is *for*;
the power it has been granted by God to rectify injustice, punish
evil, etc., etc., are all done to care for the governed.
> I think it
> should avoid harming the poor, and stay out of the way.
social welfare is far from perfect, it has demonstrably reduced
poverty, here and elsewhere. Not perfectly, and not efficiently,
which is why we need to change it. But the correlation is easy to
track; from 1950 to 1980, poverty was reduced by *two-thirds* (see
Christopher Jencks' "Rethinking Social Policy" for some interesting
figures; I *like* numbers, which invite one to *analyze* the asserted
connection).
This, as the citation points out, was mostly due to the post-war boom,
but it's telling to look at when peak welfare spending occurred, when
social programs were cut back, and what that did to the poverty level
of the country. It's also telling to note that welfare payments alone
aren't enough to cross the poverty line; and that it's dwarfed by
governmental handouts to the middle class and to corporations.
Ezekiel has lots to say about governments -- even ones not following
God -- who simply stay out of the way and do nothing to help.
> I'll agree
> with you that corporations, and individuals can't, won't or shouldn't
> be trusted to do some things. The flaw in my reasoning comes in when
> you examine that if it's not the government who would be responsible
> for these things, then who can be trusted. No one has proven that they
> are capable to be trusted to do what is right (not even the church.)
If one group gets too much power, they will exploit it -- whether that
group is "the people", government, or business. Admittedly, this only
*forestalls* corruption, though, hence the need for vigilance. (It's
often been said that the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for
good people to do nothing.)
> > I am a governmental conservative. By that, I mean that I want the
> > government to be as big as it needs to be and absolutely no bigger,
> > and that it shouldn't be the biggest gorilla in the room.
>
> Hahaha, All I see is a 300 pound gorilla. :-)
publication of things like the Federalist Papers (and people like
Madison and Franklin -- they may not have anticipated the New Deal,
but they were as quick to use public funds for the public good as any
modern liberal), arguing for a strong central government. Indeed, a
strong central government is why we have the Constitution and not the
Articles of Confederation. I'm not against big *per se* -- just big
*combined with* accountability to no one.
I'm leery of arguments claiming a link to the Founding Fathers,
though. In a sense, *all* American political movements have their
roots in the late 1700s (the Loyalist side of the argument lost), so
it's easy to cherry-pick and get the argument you want. But I also
worry that I haven't given the other side a fair shake, so there are
probably people I need to listen to whom I haven't.
I'm also leery of single-villain ideologies. There are *lots* of
social evils, and they won't go away (some of them would even be
amplified!) by reducing government. Single-villain ideologies are
unfalsifiable, and my respect for science means that I really like
ideas that are (at least potentially) falsifiable. Things like
prosperity and freedom don't have a single cause, and they can't be
brought about by making one thing go away; they're balancing acts.
The biggest reason I've found political libertarianism difficult to
swallow so far is not because I have some special love for the state
(see my social conservativism), but because I instinctively think the
right answer has to be more complex than "government is bad".
> Ok, so my view on the Constitution. Here's a few references from wiki
> that sum up a lot of my understanding. There's also the book
> that I could ever produce here. When I get my copy back, you can
> Looking at the "Enumerated Powers Act" and the lack of Congressional
> support for this, is what I would point to as the basis that our
> current Congress does not have the same view of the constitution that
> I do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_Powers_Act
> (yes, wiki again, but I've been following the Enumerated Powers Act
> since before it had a congressional sponsor)
> I view "The New Deal" as largely unconstitutional. Some programs were
> deemed unconstitutional, and canceled. Others should have been deemed
> unconstitutional, but there are a few programs in there that appear to
> be fully authorized by the enumerated powers (like the arts programs,
> and the roads projects)
Definitely something I need to look into.
> I'm nowhere near the original topic at this point,
> and I'd
> love to continue the discussion further.
go4tli
> Does it? It links to the second article, which has a table, and that
> table *specifically* cites a 43.1% rate (for individuals; 47.4% for
> corporations) for people earning $1 million or more.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obamas-2011-budget-deficit-the-same-as-2010s/1
These seem to refute my understanding. This is obviously something
that requires more thought and analysis.