Posted on 02/20/2008 7:00:55 AM PST by econjack
A few days ago, there was an article about how Chavez was going to give oil to the poor in the US. An article had the following quote:
Those who claim to be truly concerned about morality should join us in asking Big Oil to share some of its bounty and calling on our government to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program....
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II, President, CEO and founder, Citizens Energy Corp., Washington
I resonded with:
[Quote from article:]If there's something wrong with poor Americans receiving less than one-half of 1 percent of the 500 million barrels of Venezuelan oil that is imported into the United States each year, then isn't there something also wrong with American businesses and households consuming the other 99.5 percent?
If this guy really has to ask this question, he needs a basic lesson in economics. My position is that there's nothing wrong with consumers buying 100% of the oil. Indeed, why should the poor get a break? What did they do to deserve it other than be unproductive members of society that suck down resources while returning nothing to society? The liberal belief that being poor means you deserve something is so misguided. Being poor means you don't contribute and that's your problem, not mine, so quit making me pay for it.
A reader responded with:
[My quote:]What did they do to deserve it other than be unproductive members of society that suck down resources while returning nothing to society?
______________________________________
Nice broad brush you have there jack. There are numerous elderly poor in our country whose only crime was to outlive their money or who, after decades of work, cannot live in 2008 on a pension that started paying out twenty or thirty years ago. There are numerous elderly widows who stayed home in the forties, fifties and sixties to raise the kids and now have to get along on Social Security survivor benefits. There are numerous elderly who worked for decades only to see their pensions disappear with the company for whom they worked or through fraud.
There are numerous families in our country who are poor due to illness and who have to rely on a Social Security disability check.
There are thousands and thousands of poor families who, in your words, 'don't contribute' because they can't.
Finally, I responded with:
[My quote:]Sorry, but I still don’t think it’s my problem. My position is that those who truly cannot work should be helped by private charities and the church like it used to be before the New Deal. For those who must squeak by on SS, they didn’t plan well enough. They didn’t save enough while they were productive, had a higher standard of living at that time, but didn’t put enough away to sustain that standard of living. I’ve had to lower my present standard of living in order to maintain it when I retire.
Anyone who thinks SS is supposed to support you in retirement is just plain stupid. That was never the intent of the Social Security program. The fact that someone did not plan well is their problem, not mine. If someone is trying to raise a family on survivor benefits, that simply tells me that the worker did not plan well in terms of life insurance to take care of his responsibilities. I am sick and tired of people dodging their responsibilities and people trying to shove it back on me. I didn't tell him not to buy life insurance, but somehow I'm now responsible and supposed to pay for it. Again, they didn't buy it because they preferred to buy something else. Bad choice...live with it.
I do feel for those people who were the victims of fraud, since that is beyond their control. I'm not sure what the answer is for those victims. My solution is to sell whatever assets the company has, fully fund the pension obligations and, if there is anything left after that, only then do the stockholders get any relief.
Personally, I think it's time for people to fund their own lives and responsibilities and I really don't see why those who don't somehow become my responsibility.
I would like to ask the question: Why are the poor treated as special people in this country? Why is it that so few bother to ask why they are poor? And why do so many think the problem will go away if the gov't steps in to solve the problem? LBJ started the War on Poverty four decades ago and it is still with us. Indeed, unless you have pure Communism, any time two people compare salaries, one of the is going to be poorer than the other. Why is that bad? Economic incentive is why most people invest in themselves.
Finally, if I work hard and have a higher income because I invested time and money in training myself years ago, why should I have to foot the bill for someone who wanted to have more fun and invest less in themselves some time ago only to have less than I do now? People make choices and sometimes they are bad decisions, but I really fail to see why that's my problem or why I should subsidize such behavior.
You mean if someone has three kids before they’re eighteen, it is their own fault? I thought society was to blame. Oh, and schools for not giving out enough free condoms.
Because you can get power by promising two of them you will take money away from a third person that has more money than them.
Not much more complicated than that.
I agree in every respect. The real shame is that when the government stepped in to subsidize their poor life choices, suddenly these people began to feel entitled to more and more things they never earned.
In the days in which the poor relied on charity, there was much more incentive to better your station in life than depend on the prevailing winds of generosity. Now that incentive is all but removed since several scheming politicos realized there was good money to be made exploiting race and class. Now these people can vote themselves money from the community chest any time they feel like it. This has to stop if this nation is to survive.
Why? Because there’s so few of them here in the U.S.
Clearly stated and I agree. Too often spokespeople for the poor try to make the rest of us feel guilty about the plight of people who chose to be where they are. But they play on that guilt because they want public money to fund programs that they then want to control. The entitlement programs you allude to are the result.
"Numerous?" Like how many?
Anyway, if they stayed home raising the kids, maybe the kids should pay Mom back by keeping her out of squalor and destitution.
[Quote from article:]If there’s something wrong with poor Americans receiving less than one-half of 1 percent of the 500 million barrels of Venezuelan oil that is imported into the United States each year, then isn’t there something also wrong with American businesses and households consuming the other 99.5 percent?
1/2 of 1% = 2.5 Million barrels /year. That’s 137,500,000 gallons. That’s a lot of heating oil and ASSUMES that a Kennedy a)tells the truth and b)knows what the h*ll he’s talking about. Pass!
Before government feed bowls....there were families. No need to care for you're wheelchair-bound mom or pop....shuffle 'em off the the 'home'. And , by golly, you paid fer it, right?
A fine mess. I want a do-over. Set the wayback.
Trust me...you're singing to the choir...
Per the libs, not having health care insurance = poor. "struggling" = poor. Making a mistake on a home mortgage = poor. Being a minority = poor. There are tons of them.
:o)
Proverbs 21:13
King James Bible
"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses." -Proverbs 28:27
"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." -Ezekiel 16:49
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." -Proverbs 29:7
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." -Deuteronomy 15:11
I'm all for helping the poor, but we as individuals should VOLUNTEER to help them. The government should NOT be picking our pockets to FORCE anyone to 'help' them. The latter only results in class warfare and a large group of persistently 'poor' who expect handouts.
Ah, but this is the basis of "liberalism" - making those who make wise decisions pay for the consequences of the bad decisions of others.
It's because they don't want to "discriminate" or "judge" people's behavioral choices. And if they are to not judge those decisions, then the outcomes must be exactly the same as those who made other decisions.
Why do that when the gov't will do it for you?
perverse incentives. but the left won't recognize them because they don't understand human incentives, nor the extension of those incentives into a free market.
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.