On 2010-12-25 23:17, Carrie Sue wrote:
Balducci, you're way off the hook on this one. Scrooge seems to be in favor of the welfare state, at least as far as he pays his taxes and thinks that's enough. "Those who are badly off must go there."

I think that's quite different from the federal government paying unemployed people--yes, for not working--for two or three years. Unemployment insurance payments were supposed to be a stop-gap measure, not a way of life. Today, under the Obama administration, it's plain and straight welfare.

Carrie

On 2010-12-26 19:21, Carrie Sue wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-26 18:35, R.S. wrote:
The passage suggests that God frowns on societies that do not help the needy.

-Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."


Ron

Who's suggesting that no one help the needy?

Certainly not I. So explain yourself.

Carrie

On 2010-12-26 20:52, ed rhodes wrote:
Notice that the sin is that the _city_ of Sodom does not support the needy.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—then ethe Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially fthose who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority.
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. 2 Pe 2:4-10

On 2010-12-26 17:00, LobowolfXXX wrote:


I think your analogies are off the mark in at least two relevant ways. First, in the murder example, you're talking about the person performing the act which he or she is arguing is wrong, e.g. murder is wrong, but the person commits murder. To say that the government shouldn't provide Benefit X isn't the same as saying that people shouldn't utilize it.

More relevantly, though, the legalization of murder doesn't come out of the pocket of the taxpayer. In the "government programs" argument, the person against program X is being forced to pay for it anyway; I think that justifies using it while it's in place. In fact, I'm inclined to think that someone who uses (or is likely to use) a program that he or she argues against has more credibility that someone in the same position who argues FOR the program; for the person receiving the benefit, the argument in favor of the program has an obvious personal bias. Let's take someone who has no inclination to work, and receives government assistance for years; when he argues in favor of increased government welfare benefits, should we afford him MORE credibility because his argument is consistent with his actions? Of course not. This reasoning, of course, would not apply to someone who is benefited in the past from programs that he or she will have no further occasion to use (e.g. Clarence Thomas arguing against affirmative action).

On 2010-12-26 23:44, landmark wrote:

Not buying that "it's paid for anyway." Either you believe in the morality of something or you don't. Someone else can use the resource you're so against. "I don't believe in prostitution, but since they're offering free prostitutes, which I've already paid my taxes for, I'll reluctantly take advantage (it's a dirty job but waste not, want not.) And by the way, I'm an even more noble man than you, because yesterday on Meet the Press, I spoke out against the free prostitutes program."

On 2010-12-27 00:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-26 23:44, landmark wrote:

Not buying that "it's paid for anyway." Either you believe in the morality of something or you don't. Someone else can use the resource you're so against. "I don't believe in prostitution, but since they're offering free prostitutes, which I've already paid my taxes for, I'll reluctantly take advantage (it's a dirty job but waste not, want not.) And by the way, I'm an even more noble man than you, because yesterday on Meet the Press, I spoke out against the free prostitutes program."

I understand your position, but I still disagree (strongly) with it. I think it's really bizarre and perverse to take the position that anyone opposed to particular government spending choices should be expected not only to take the tax hit from paying for the programs, but also refrain from enjoying any of the benefits that they're reluctantly paying for.

On 2010-12-27 00:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-26 23:44, landmark wrote:
Not buying that "it's paid for anyway." Either you believe in the morality of something or you don't. Someone else can use the resource you're so against. "I don't believe in prostitution, but since they're offering free prostitutes, which I've already paid my taxes for, I'll reluctantly take advantage (it's a dirty job but waste not, want not.) And by the way, I'm an even more noble man than you, because yesterday on Meet the Press, I spoke out against the free prostitutes program."

I understand your position, but I still disagree (strongly) with it. I think it's really bizarre and perverse to take the position that anyone opposed to particular government spending choices should be expected not only to take the tax hit from paying for the programs, but also refrain from enjoying any of the benefits that they're reluctantly paying for.

On 2010-12-27 00:39, balducci wrote:
"One of the chief purposes of government spending programs is the redistribution of wealth."

Personally, I think that is more of a result than a purpose. At least, where I live. YMMV.

But where it is more a result than a purpose, one is not really thwarting anything by participating in such a program. You are meant to participate, if you qualify.

On 2010-12-27 00:55, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-27 00:39, balducci wrote:
"One of the chief purposes of government spending programs is the redistribution of wealth."

Personally, I think that is more of a result than a purpose. At least, where I live. YMMV.

But where it is more a result than a purpose, one is not really thwarting anything by participating in such a program. You are meant to participate, if you qualify.

If I give the government my money and they give it back to me, it hasn't been redistributed. Tainted, perhaps, and diminished (S&H), but not redistributed.

Please tell me that you noted the sarcasm in my original post. (It was directed, specifically, to LobowolfXXX.)

On 2010-12-26 20:42, Carrie Sue wrote:
OK, Steve, and you share that to say what?

Carrie