Are liberals dumb?

[jhmd2000]

Western/Christian society has put a moral imperative on the rich to support the poor for 2,000 years. During exactly none of that time did the rich voluntarily support the poor in a way sufficient to keep them from living in starvation and squalor. Instead, the rich extracted as much labor and goods from the poor as they could and threw them enough crumbs to keep them from revolting.

Find me a time and place where the poorest citizens had a quality of life from charity remotely comparable to that which they enjoy in a modern Western welfare state. The condition of the poorest didn't change much between 1000 AD and 1900 AD. In fact, the life of a English peasant farmer in 1000 AD may have been better than the life of a mill worker in Guilford County circa 1890, if you subtract the Viking invasions. I'd take the Viking invasions over being a poor black man in the American south circa 1859. You may think that's all a coincidence, that the poor in Western societies would be just as well off in an entitlement free, voluntary giving-based libertarian utopia, but I say that's complete bunk and I think history is on my side.

The proper comparison is not a modern victim of the welfare state versus a Welshman gored by a Viking's spear, freezing to death in a pool of his own fluids, huddled against a damp rock, being kept warm only by the heat generated from this own blood leaving his body and the motion from the hemorrhaging on the side of some God-forsaken windswept beach (although admittedly, I'd take that fate over living in Greensboro, either now or in 1890).

The proper comparison is the current lot of a teenage mother, living in the apartment of a 26 year old grandmother, where you can't find a high school diploma or an in tact family in the entire building (let alone her apartment), against where those same people would be if we installed expectations and conditions for continued aid, versus the no questions asked subsistence dependency check we've been mailing the last four generations of uneducated single mothers in that family. That's the question I'm asking. We should be taking an honest, clear-eyed look at that family and ask ourselves, do I have to place this in the context of a Viking invasion for their condition and prospects to look acceptable? If so, let's try something else.

 

[dmcheatw]

The proper comparison is not a modern victim of the welfare state versus a Welshman gored by a Viking's spear, freezing to death in a pool of his own fluids, huddled against a damp rock, being kept warm only by the heat generated from this own blood leaving his body and the motion from the hemorrhaging on the side of some God-forsaken windswept beach (although admittedly, I'd take that fate over living in Greensboro, either now or in 1890).

The proper comparison is the current lot of a teenage mother, living in the apartment of a 26 year old grandmother, where you can't find a high school diploma or an in tact family in the entire building (let alone her apartment), against where those same people would be if we installed expectations and conditions for continued aid, versus the no questions asked subsistence dependency check we've been mailing the last four generations of uneducated single mothers in that family. That's the question I'm asking. We should be taking an honest, clear-eyed look at that family and ask ourselves, do I have to place this in the context of a Viking invasion for their condition and prospects to look acceptable? If so, let's try something else.

yes those people are obviously anti-family, anti-education, and hate jobs.

 

[jhmd2000]

yes those people are obviously anti-family, anti-education, and hate jobs.

What do their choices tell you? At what point do we take a pragmatic look at that situation and say, "Well, I'm not going to hire the sixteen year mother of two with a ninth grade education. I regret that she has taken herself of the running for every job in my company. Who's the next candidate?"

 

[ChrisL68]

how did your parents accumulate their wealth if not through high income?

My parents have owned rental properties for decades that have alot of unrealized appreciation. He also built their house (he was a builder and real estate guy) so they had appreciation there as well.

Can you give an example of a tough decision your parents have had to make? Here is what I understand to btough decisions, better than i read in any textbook:

My father grew up in the aftermath of the great depression and his father was an alcoholic. He had to work a variety of jobs as a 10 and 11 year old to help feed the family. He worked and sacrificed his entire life so that he and his kids wouldn't have to make those kinds of decisions. The whole american dream thing.

anyway sorry to preach but that's just my world view. but again i do think it should be done gradually, so people get fucked over with less intensity. but again you could always look at it as living up to the philanthropic tradition of humanity which is in itself a vote of confidence in society and an acknowledgement that we're all in it together...as well as a way to keep people from open revolt as 923 mentioned.

Maybe its just in the way you present your viewpoint because I find myself agreeing with 923 often. Being taxed to provide a social safety net is a noble goal for a society. But taxing until everybody is equal will never work. Why would I bust my ass just to end up in the same place as somebody who doesn't work?

 

[Deacon923]

The proper comparison is not a modern victim of the welfare state versus a Welshman gored by a Viking's spear, freezing to death in a pool of his own fluids, huddled against a damp rock, being kept warm only by the heat generated from this own blood leaving his body and the motion from the hemorrhaging on the side of some God-forsaken windswept beach (although admittedly, I'd take that fate over living in Greensboro, either now or in 1890).

The proper comparison is the current lot of a teenage mother, living in the apartment of a 26 year old grandmother, where you can't find a high school diploma or an in tact family in the entire building (let alone her apartment), against where those same people would be if we installed expectations and conditions for continued aid, versus the no questions asked subsistence dependency check we've been mailing the last four generations of uneducated single mothers in that family. That's the question I'm asking. We should be taking an honest, clear-eyed look at that family and ask ourselves, do I have to place this in the context of a Viking invasion for their condition and prospects to look acceptable? If so, let's try something else.

:slowclap: for purple prose.

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't try "something else." I am eliminating from my list, however, the particular "something else" option of dismantling large portions of the safety net, giving the tax money back to the rich, and trusting that they will use it to help the poor through noble efficient charities. History has proven that particular "something else" to be a canard. That's all I'm saying, and cannot be reasonably extrapolated to mean I approve of every facet of the current American welfare system.

 

[beatrix]

That's funny, but unfortunately not very true. What is the Administration's plan to reduce the national debt, and when does the action on that plan start?

Before: Debt constitutes 74.1% of GDP
Present (year 5): Debt constitutes 103.9% of GDP

Maybe we need a better plan (which is the point of the OP).

Of interest -- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304402104579149311401282226?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

If its behind the paywall, the money line is..

What's the real burden when you count these promises? Taking the "alternative fiscal scenario" from the Congressional Budget Office, which still understates the problem but is the closest Washington gets to reality, Mr. Druckenmiller calculates the net present value of Beltway commitments. He concludes that "the future liabilities are $205 trillion, not 17." It's a staggering sum, roughly 12 times the size of the U.S. economy.

 

[beatrix]

Of interest -- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304402104579149311401282226?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

If its behind the paywall, the money line is..

What's the real burden when you count these promises? Taking the "alternative fiscal scenario" from the Congressional Budget Office, which still understates the problem but is the closest Washington gets to reality, Mr. Druckenmiller calculates the net present value of Beltway commitments. He concludes that "the future liabilities are $205 trillion, not 17." It's a staggering sum, roughly 12 times the size of the U.S. economy.

ETA: $205t (Jesus...) points to deep issues on both sides of the aisle.

 

[jhmd2000]

My parents have owned rental properties for decades that have alot of unrealized appreciation. He also built their house (he was a builder and real estate guy) so they had appreciation there as well.

***

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

 

[RJKarl]

The deficit has been cut in half since Obama took office. My bad, that's not as good as W turning a $250B+ surplus into a $1.4T deficit.

Only a "conservative" would think it's worse to lower the annual deficit by $700B/year versus increasing it by $1.65T/year.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Not at all. I am simply pointing out the fact that charitable giving is not, and has never been, a meaningful substitute for government redistribution when it comes to helping the poor. Charity is a great thing, but history (and modern nonprofit tax returns) shows that the lions share of the "charity" goes to pump up the status of the giver or support the lifestyle of the people running the charitable institution.

Obviously many charities do great work but I don't buy the argument that (a) charities on the whole are any less wasteful than government or (b) that rich people would be so grateful for their tax cut that they'd give a meaningful portion of it to the mythical hyper efficient charities.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

So if you're paying $100,000 in taxes, you don't think that the direct effect of that $100,000 would be better realized by your local battered women's center or homeless shelter than it would the federal government?

 

[TownieDeac]

So if you're paying $100,000 in taxes, you don't think that the direct effect of that $100,000 would be better realized by your local battered women's center or homeless shelter than it would the federal government?

Look up false equivalence in the dictionary and a pic of 2&2's posting history pops up

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Look up false equivalence in the dictionary and a pic of 2&2's posting history pops up

What the hell are you talking about? It is directly on point with my discussion with Numbers that 923 jumped into.

 

[RJKarl]

So if you're paying $100,000 in taxes, you don't think that the direct effect of that $100,000 would be better realized by your local battered women's center or homeless shelter than it would the federal government?

If people could this, we'd have no army. People from NYC and Chicago could determine not to pay for national parks. People in NY, CA, IL, PA, NJ, MA and other states would certainly not send our taxes to keep SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY NC and other states' heads above water.

You are easily one of the Top 3 most radically out of touch people on this board.

 

[TownieDeac]

What the hell are you talking about? It is directly on point with my discussion with Numbers that 923 jumped into.

it is a false equivalence that a person paying $100,000 in taxes would be spending that $100,000 on charity. or that paying $100,000 precludes them from giving $100,000 to charity. it's really just a massive logical fallacy, but of the kind you make CONSTANTLY. hence my post. you are either dumb or disingenuous, and i'd rather think the latter.

 

[Deacon923]

So if you're paying $100,000 in taxes, you don't think that the direct effect of that $100,000 would be better realized by your local battered women's center or homeless shelter than it would the federal government?

Well, first of all, the taxpayer has to actually make the decision to give that $100,000 to the battered women's center. The entire history of the world until the invention of income tax indicates that this will not happen. That is my first and primary point and I don't want it to get lost. The choice is not between $100,000 in taxes to the government and $100,000 to battered women, it is between $100,000 in taxes and some much smaller amount to battered women.

Second, the charity has to deliver the $100,000 to the battered women. There are lots of local charities doing great work and delivering aid to people who need it. Once they start to scale up, they quickly run into the same problems that government has: increasing bureaucracy, wasted money, stolen money, and money spent on the institution rather than the intended beneficiaries. So, out of the fraction of the $100,000 that is actually given to the charity, some even smaller fraction actually gets used to, you know, help battered women, and that fraction tends to get smaller the larger the charity gets.

Third, government ideally helps all citizens. Clearly government often falls short of that ideal. Private charities, on the other hand, only help those causes that are most popular with the richest donors. Breast cancer. Photogenic animals. Paying the salary of clergy. Building nice libraries named after the Carnegies. You get the picture. The poorest, least politically popular, and least able to advocate for themselves always get the short end of the stick. Government at least tries to help these people - and the richest among us who are most able to help them, constantly complain about these moochers being unworthy of help. That brings us full circle to number 1: the rich are very unlikely to help the poor voluntarily with the same amount of dollars they contribute through compulsory taxation.

 

[bmoneydeac]

I would like to see more favorable tax treatment for charitable givings to places that provide basic survival services (food banks, homeless shelters, etc.). Maybe something closer to a dollar for dollar write-off of your tax bill.

 

[WFFaithful]

I would like to see more favorable tax treatment for charitable givings to places that provide basic survival services (food banks, homeless shelters, etc.). Maybe something closer to a dollar for dollar write-off of your tax bill.

Would be easily circumvented like Super PACs are "Social Welfare" organizations.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

it is a false equivalence that a person paying $100,000 in taxes would be spending that $100,000 on charity. or that paying $100,000 precludes them from giving $100,000 to charity. it's really just a massive logical fallacy, but of the kind you make CONSTANTLY. hence my post. you are either dumb or disingenuous, and i'd rather think the latter.

Dude, holy shit, can you fucking read? Look at post #55 and the related posts, from which this entire discussion came about. The point is that if I am paying $100,000 anyway, I can see it doing a lot more good going to charity than going to taxes.

 

[Deacon923]

Dude, holy shit, can you fucking read? Look at post #55 and the related posts, from which this entire discussion came about. The point is that if I am paying $100,000 anyway, I can see it doing a lot more good going to charity than going to taxes.

I'm sure you can. Perhaps you would even give that whole $100,000 in tax relief directly to a very effective charity. Not doubting your motives. Just saying that the entire history of the world indicates that on average, very few rich people are going to act that way, and very few charities are going to deliver the aid as effectively or as evenly as government.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I'm sure you can. Perhaps you would even give that whole $100,000 in tax relief directly to a very effective charity. Not doubting your motives. Just saying that the entire history of the world indicates that on average, very few rich people are going to act that way, and very few charities are going to deliver the aid as effectively or as evenly as government.

I don't disagree with you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in which it was brought up. Numbers said that when he is loaded, his position on taxes won't change because he didn't build that and will want to give back to society through taxes for helping him reach that level. I told him that his viewpoint may change if/when he reaches that point, when he sees the actual dollars, recognizes the time involved, and recognizes the good that money could do via private charity. In that scenario, the money is already being spent one way or another and the issue at hand is the viewpoint of the person involved as the payor/siezee, not a societal question of whether taxes should be raised or lowered.