I guess your suggestion is that we just let 'em all die where they fall. At least that is what it sounds like?Originally Posted by thethe
If a person is handicapped or mentally ill, they are going to be "taking" a lot more than they are putting in, so let's all put them in camps along with the malingerers.
Last edited by 50PoundHead; 11-13-2013 at 05:14 PM.
jpx7 (11-13-2013)
Check your stats. There was a spike with the economic downturn, but projections are that welfare spending (federal, state, and local) will be going down.
Link: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...04_2019USb_40t
I'm not familiar with this site, but it appears to be developed by the Tea Party.
This video is apt
Are you in favor of sanctions on countries like Iran? Because - that's just letting them all die
I didn't elect the government of Iran.
No. But you elect the government of the US - who puts sanctions on them which kills thousands of their people
I really would like 57 to explain how my premiums rising are MY fault
Of course there will be exceptions. I have been adamant that welfare should be extended to mentally ill and I the handicapped should get the same.
But, if you have made bad choices in your life to the point where you can't afford to take care of yourself then you made your own bed. Why is it my responsibility to take care of others? GIve me the ability to make that decision and not force me to.
Natural Immunity Croc
We can keep going ad infinitum, my only point is that this is a very slippery slope. What about people who get laid off from work? Why didn't they choose another profession? And what constitutes a bad choice?
I really respect you Bedell, so I hesitate in typing this, but: I ultimately feel that the article by Evans – despite making some solid points here and there – is, along with essential argument, pretty damn laughable.
First, I think there's a fairly clear case of mistaking symptom for cause:
That final sentence is key: it is indeed a stretch, and a pretty large and silly one to my mind, to "to attribute this breakdown of the family to [...] America’s welfare policies that make the support of fathers less necessary." Fathers have been stepping out on their wives and children as long as there have been fathers, mothers, and children; to suggest that social safety-net policies of the past half-century are responsible for this fact is a ridiculous (albeit convenient) fiction. The need for a safety-net is symptomatic of this pre-existing fact; the implementation of the safety-net is a societal recognition of said fact and an attempt at treatment.Government action can displace local community ties. Take the example of childbearing. Social Security (government support for the elderly) has displaced children as the primary support for many elderly people. According to Jonathan Last, in his recent book What to Expect When No One’s Expecting, Social Security has driven fertility down on average by about half a child. And this is to say nothing of frayed parent-child relationships that government policy enables, with elderly living in nursing homes with little support from or interaction with their children.
We also see this tendency in illegitimate births, where support for single mothers actually facilitates single-motherhood. The destruction of the two-parent household in the African-American community, where about 74 percent of children today are born to unmarried mothers, is devastating. It is no stretch to attribute this breakdown of the family to, at least in part, America’s welfare policies that make the support of fathers less necessary.
Likewise: social security benefits are really a pittance, and a drop-in-the-bucket compared to what it usually costs to send the elderly to a "home" instead of accepting them into the family home, so this "governmental enabling" schtick doesn't really hold water. If social values and priorities have changed – for instance, pushing children out and away from the home sooner, more readily, and with stronger seeming necessity than in the past – it's not because of the spectre or social security; social security was designed to attend to this reality.
---
Furthermore, while Evans touches some good notes in his invocation of Aristotle's opening gambit in Politics and his citation of Tocqueville's cautionary description of mass-tyranny writ institutional (and what he misses or occludes from both those texts—primarily regarding the potential solutions each author presents to the problems they outlay—is another conversation), his principal argument in the end reads like little more than market-apologetics couched in Christian concern:
To quote Evans back at himself: This approach is not novel.Obamacare’s vast regulation of the health insurance market begins to subvert both individual responsibility and community engagement with individual needs. What Wright and Bird and many liberal democrats really want is government-run universal healthcare, which is an even greater step toward the exclusion of responsibility and community ties. As Christians, we must oppose this system, not because of what it provides, but because of what it excludes.
Finally—and this likely results from the simple but essential fact that I am not a Christian—is that I'm not really concerned, beyond a literary level, with "what the Bible envisions for the true flourishing of humanity," in no small part because I think this life is all-too-likely the only life. As such, I'm of the opinion that society should be conjugating itself with respect to the the immediate physical and psychological tense, not the potential spiritual future tense; and I don't think this presents mutual exclusivity to the Christian, who must likewise live in the City of Man.
Indeed, I think that a society engaged in universally "provid[ing] the basic necessities of life" is commensurate with, or at least a key step towards, "the true flourishing of humanity"—if for no other reason than my belief that the provision of necessities frees our minds to probe and ponder the essential that lies beyond the mere necessary.
Last edited by jpx7; 11-13-2013 at 06:40 PM.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Well, obviously I wouldn't post something that I thought was "pretty damn laughable," so of course I think his work was of some value. Maybe - maybe - both he and you are overblown in your rhetoric. Maybe we don't make much progress when one side mistakes symptom for cause and the other acknowledges no negative effect, unintended consequence in governmental action.
I also think you are misguided if you believe that a Christian, by the fact that he believes that this life is not all there is, therefore isn't concerned about this present life, with its misery and woe. That's a non-sequitar, if indeed you think that.
Anyway, sorry you found little commendable in the work of this young man, one I'm honored to have shepherded for a time, and am somewhat proud of...
"Yawn" - I like this guy. Meaning, many/most of you won't. :-)
Bedell, I read Evans' article and found it interesting. I'm a fan of Robert Nisbet and there's a lot in Evans' article that echoes some of Nisbet's perspectives.
My primary critique is that he doesn't mention the mobility of modern society and how that affects the maintenance of community. I will likely die (hopefully not for awhile) within 50 miles of where I was born and I realize that makes me quite rare in modern society. People go where the work is and work is often a long ways away from where one was born or where one's family of origin is residing. That's an effect of economic activity and not of what the government has done or possibly will do.
I don't think the link between Social Security and the rate of child-bearing holds up very well either. I think that trend is tied more likely to advances in birth control.
I agree with his arguments on family structure. Being someone who has gone through a divorce, I saw first-hand the difficulties (emotional, not financial) that my children experienced. I can only imagine the stress that unstable family structure creates among the less fortunate.
Even though I'm left-of-center, I do think that government can't solve (and shouldn't be expected to solve) everyone's problems. As I said in my response to thethe, it is a slippery slope, but I acknowledge that people have to step up in life. My perspective is that the arm reaching up shouldn't have to be ten times longer than the arm reaching down. And the converse is the arm reaching down shouldn't have to--in most cases--totally lift up the person below without an effort put forward by said person.
In closing, I don't think there is a strict Christian political doctrine and I blanch a bit when the Deity in All Three Persons is dragged into these debates. Everyone brings their values into the discussion, as Evans has done here, but Bird and Wright are bringing their values as well.
FreemanFan (11-29-2013), jpx7 (11-14-2013)
Those ads (which are getting a lot of viral play right now) are incomprehensibly stupid. It's worth iterating that they are the product of a progressive advocacy group, most likely playing for publicity and, apparently, to a much lesser degree, conversation. I'm within their 'target audience,' presumably, and the message doesn't resound ... it actually nauseates.
They do remind me of an ad campaign I saw in Berlin a few months ago, seen here. Different subject matter entirely -- interesting nonetheless.
BedellBrave (11-14-2013)
Good response 50. Thank you. I think we all do well to pick up and value the contributions, good thoughts, expressed by others on the other side of the aisle. And I think your point about mobility is a good one. It's one that we do need to consider (and that's coming from a Wendell Berry fan like I am). So, yes, our transient - highly mobile society needs to be factored in, as well as, imho, encouraging community, roots, staying-power, etc. - and for some of the various reasons of human flourishing we should all desire. And I think 50, the Church should lead the way locally in developing the sort of community for those who have moved from that community of their birth. I think if you find yourself in an active local congregation you see this sort of community-building spirit regularly.
Oh, and I absolutely agree with you that there is a spectrum of political doctrine that Christians can advocate - and I actually think that's one of the strengths of Andrew, and his dad's, an Anthony Bradley's, and Michael Krueger's responses to Wright (whom I very much like) and Bird. Wright and Bird seem taken back by that reality. That said, I am game for me and my fellow historic-orthodox-evangelicals talking to one another on these various issues where faith and policy intersect.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 11-14-2013 at 02:21 PM.
Wendell Barry is certainly someone everyone needs to read in this age.
I think local congregations and religious organizations can provide the kind of glue in communities that secular organizations often cannot (for whatever reason, most likely lack of transcendence).
I'm sure he's a swell person, and I very much wanted to avoid the ad hominem and instead critique the article itself, so please know I didn't intend to demean the man (or offend you) as I assailed his article's message.
Furthermore, I do acknowledge potential negative and/or unintended consequences with respect to governmental action/intervention, I just don't buy the two examples Evans cites, and think what he says "isn't a stretch" very much is one. I'm also not imputing to Evans an absence of concern with the physical and materially present; my point was more that I don't think policy decisions and goal-setting for our society should be determined by "what the Bible envisions for the true flourishing of humanity."
Last edited by jpx7; 11-14-2013 at 05:39 PM.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Those advertisements are execrable; nearly nauseating, as Hawk says. Just a daft and total misreading of the target-audience.
However: I disagree with the author's extension of his critique of one advocacy-group's ill-considered and horribly-executed ad-campaign to the entirety of liberalism.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Just sayin'
///////
"The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA."
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_o..._plan_partner/
Best hyphen usage of all time. Bra-vo sir
Ivermectin Man
jpx7 (11-15-2013)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote