Posted on 08/21/2005 10:29:42 AM PDT by Capitalism2003
BEST OF JIM COOK
August 16, 2005
HELPING TILL IT HURTS
By subsidizing the underclass we increase the risk of crime to ourselves and our families. The religious thinker Swedenburg wrote, "He who assists a poor or needy villain does evil to his neighbor... for through the assistance which he renders he .... supplies him with the means of doing evil to others." In other words, charity to bad people hurts good people.
How much government welfare goes to support villains? What percentage of support payments go to encourage delinquent parents to have children that will grow into villains? We don’t know the exact amount, but everyday experience indicates that it’s high. Certainly high enough to accuse the government of wrecking the lives of innocent citizens who suffer the consequences of rampant crime and social disorder. Furthermore, we have not begun to see a fraction of the problems that giving money to villains unleashes. That will come.
Subsidies that encourage unwed mothers mean that the least successful and most dysfunctional members of society have the highest birth rate. This intractable problem threatens order and promises to destabilize the future like nothing else. Our culture is being corrupted by eliminating the requirement to make one’s own way in life. The sorry consequences of subsidies qualify as a "danger from within" that Lincoln warned would be the one thing that could cause America to fail.
Why does the government make such blunders and do more damage with its well-meaning programs than it cures? For one thing, they practice liberal social policies. Liberalism is Americanized socialism. Every step towards socialism does damage to society. But that’s not the only reason that governments so often make a mess of what they do. For a number of reasons governments are incompetent. That’s not very reassuring, because they are in charge of the money, the banking system and the retirement and financial security of most of the people. To suggest that they will likely mismanage all of this in the worst possible way has profound implications for all of us.
In business there is profit or loss to determine success or failure. Government has no similar yardstick to measure results. They have no objective means of economic calculation to determine the worth of their activities. There’s no bottom line. That means there is no incentive for cost cutting or sound financial management in government. Quite the opposite, bureaucrats feel it’s necessary to increase budgets and spend more.
Government has far more rules and regulations than private concerns because the law imposes restrictions on government. There is little room for discretion or independent thinking. Rigid and inflexible government policies destroy innovation and creativity. It’s hard to get anything done, and frustrating delays are endemic to the system.
Government employees move up the ladder through educational credentials rather than merit. People are given jobs and promotions based on seniority, race and gender rather than ability or talent. Such a system often overlooks the deserving and rewards the incompetent. There is no payoff for achievement. Politicians often promise to make government more efficient but it’s a vain hope. These bureaucratic organizations that control so much of our lives are all too often dangerously incompetent. If you’re relying on the government for your happiness or prosperity, you stand to be disappointed. Big government inevitably leads to failure.
Government employees move up the ladder through educational credentials rather than merit. People are given jobs and promotions based on seniority, race and gender rather than ability or talent. >>>>>>>>>>
This is dead on the money, unfortunately it is not just the government, the same thing happens more than we care to admit in private industry. Anyone who has worked for large companies has seen the phenomenon of highly capable people working for someone who really should be at the bottom rather than managing others.
Forced charity is a contradiction in terms.>>>>>>>>>
Obviously you flunked politically correct groupthink!
Working for the Federal government was the easiest and hardest job I ever had. Go with the tide was easy. Swim against the tide and you were in trouble. I was always in trouble.
Thank you, thank you for that bit of wisdom often overlooked by individuals and even churches.
All those who here decry the present Administration can surely recognize the fact that "forced charity" (redistribution of wealth) is the hallmark and tyrannical tool for obtaining votes of the Democratic Party. Therefore, would Gore or Kerry/Edwards have been a better choice, and where would we be if they had succeeded Clinton? Where does that leave you as a citizen and voter? This President inherited a mess, contrary to Democratic spin.
We must remind ourselves that 9/11 happened. Radicals declared war on America long before the current President took office in January 2001. Repeated attacks evoked no appropriate responses. Indeed, the so-called terrorists were given adequate time to infiltrate our shores, establish cells, train their puppets and conduct clandestine operations that resulted in attacks within our borders.
The President who has had to deal with the results is not perfect, and neither is the Congress, but we must remind ourselves of our history and of the choices our most recent elections offered.
NO lawful authority to take one person's hard earned money and distribute it to others that are too lazy/shiftless/stupid to earn their own.
Leave charitable works to the charities.
So true. Bible says if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat.
What's that saying - teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry, give a man fish and he will be back again.
The government works for us - that's the way it was set up - civil servants - BUT what a lie that is, we WORK five months out of the year FOR the government to keep those deep pockets filled.
How twisted it has all turned out. Instead of "WE the People" it's "WE the servants".
Nor would you be in error.
The difference being that:
1. I was not on it any longer than I absolutely HAD to be.
2. I did not take everything I 'qualified' for...really ticked off my caseworker too. She couldn't believe I turned down *free* stuff!
But that STILL doesn't change the truth of my original post, so what's your point?
Probably because our government has changed the (legal) meaning of words like 'Citizen' while we weren't even looking!
Not really a point. I was brought up during the depression. there was no handout, there was no handup. We were neither lazy or stupid.
Someone here asked me to give my definition of poverty. I replied, "Hunger day after day is poverty"...
Perhaps we were stupid for being in that situation but I can assure you it was difficult to survive. We never asked for anything and were never given anything.
I try to temper my conservatism with this thought, conservatism is not all good and socialism is not all bad.
A child working in the fields all day under the hot sun, his pay being his dinner, does tend to make one be a bit more tolerant.
True. My mother was raised in the Depression as well, and she taught us to be thrifty, because you never knew when that little bit you saved today would be ALL that you had tomorrow.
As beneficial as government charity can be in some cases, the 'habit' becomes a lifestyle for some, and it's not within the powers of government in the first place.
(Don't know if you're aware of it or not, but the Depression was caused by government meddling in the monetary supply.)
I wasn't trying to imply poor people are poor because they're stupid either...sorry if it came across that way! :)
Nope, didn't take it like that at all. Was not trying to be critical.
Monetary????? During the depression???? We sure were aware of it because we had none.
Thrift?? Better believe that.
FDR found out that the way to re election was via the Federal treasury and he was correct. Since that time we have been on a fast track for socialism.
Thanks, MamaTexan. FR University at it's best.
It'll take some time to finish reading.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: "Nixon was the most socialist of the presidents of the United States in the 20th century. "PBS Commanding Heights interview
I rank him as the fourth most destructive president after Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ. Thanks to a Republican congress, Clinton was saved from himself and ranks fifth, in my book.
Read later bump. But like Ferris Buehler, I have a bias against "isms".
I believe the Cato institute did a study showing that NON-defense spending is up over 12% annually under Bush.
To: cynicom During the depression there was no hand-out or hand-ups? Perhaps you were sleeping. What about WPA, PWA, TVA, CCC camps,etc. These programs definitely were a hand-up. Which ones did you participatre in? I have yet to talk with survivors of the depression and hear that they didn't receive government help or some sort. Of course there were lazy and stupid people. They didn't just disappear because times were hard.
Ask the RINOs who've hijacked the GOP.
In any event, what you suggest RERQUIRED WORK, there was no handout of a check in the mail. Handup??? You jest. Those that had, made sure you stayed in your place at all times.
If you have known of hunger, you may decide who was sleeping or stupid or whatever, if you have not, it is easy to make demeaning remarks.
The people of Cape Cod will be finding this out. They got eight sex offenders and untold numbers of felons from New Orleans. That's out of 250.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.