Illusion

[Foreigner]

James, Aspen is well are of the programs for the poor.
It has been pointed out to him that there are millions on the program that are currently in need and deserve the assistance, millions of others on the programs should not be and that it is costing the US tax payers at least 100 Billion dollars a year in waste.

He stated flatly he had no problem with that. Makes perfect since since we are talking about other people's money.

He falsely implies it is either gov't money or jail for everyone on this program.
He forgets that MILLIONS left welfare under the Welfare Reforms under Clinton and most have never returned.
Once his mind is made up, he doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

 

[aspen]

Who are all these "poor" who are not being taken care of? We have aid for dependent children, medicaid, medicare, social security, ssi, food stamps, wic, public housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Pell grant education program, head start, general assistance, unemployment compensation, and who knows how many other programs for the poor? And yet they are so victimized that they turn to crime. Now, my family came from impoverished Appalachia where people didn't even have running water, much less cable TV, air conditioning, etc. And they were moral ethical people who did not turn to crime because they were poor. So poverty is not why people are in prison. Our poor are vastly richer than 85% of the world's population.

But for some on the left, no amount of assistance will ever be enough until everybody has exactly the same amout from some mythical fixed pie. And that kind of policy mindset will doom everyone, the poor and the middle class.

All of those programs cost taxpayers money - and many of the people here think that taxpayer money should not be spent on the poor.

 

[Foreigner]

Not true in the least.

Many here think it should not be spent on those who have the ability to find work and support themselves but choose not to because they can live off of gov't money.
The distinction between those that truly need (and thus deserve gov't assistance) and those that are capable of supporting themselves if they wished has been made more than once.

 

[aspen]

Not true in the least.

Many here think it should not be spent on those who have the ability to find work and support themselves but choose not to because they can live off of gov't money.
The distinction between those that truly need (and thus deserve gov't assistance) and those that are capable of supporting themselves if they wished has been made more than once.

Right......the people on government assistant are lazy - the ones hand picked by private citizens are hard workers......dream on Foreigner

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Private ownership.

We own nothing in this world. As soon as we embrace this truth, we will realize that nothing can be taken from us - possessions will stop being our slavemasters.

We are using the possessions God has blessed us with - we are called to manage His creation, not hoard it.

I was able to test that a few years ago. I lost every material possession I owned (flood) (no insurance) ... and then lost everything dear to me (wife) (pets) (loved ones)

Not a pleasant time , I survived intact , and today I am in no distress.

But here is the interesting part .... I never felt that I lost anything.

As A christian I still had it all.

We often "say" those things .... but when put to the test it is true.

As Christians we truly do have it all.

May you all have a kind and wonderful day.

 

[Foreigner]

Right......the people on government assistant are lazy - the ones hand picked by private citizens are hard workers......dream on Foreigner

-- Oh.....so close. SOME people on gov't assistance are lazy. MILLIONS by the gov'ts own estimate.
They were easily identified under Clinton when they were told they would have to provide some sort of work (painting, picking up garbage, cleaning, etc.) instead of sitting at home month after month, year after year if they wanted to continue to receive free money.

Those who were shown to be unable to work or having disabled famiy members whose care they were responsile for were of course exempt.
Those with children who attended school were expected to work at least 10-15 hours a week during the time the kids were at school.
Men who were not part of a family with children were expected to work more hours. And those owing child support would have part of their wages garnered.

The results? MILLIONS of "poor" on gov't assistance - some that had been on gov't assistance for years - were suddenly able to find work in the private sector.
The vast majority of them never returned to gov't assistance.
Many now own homes, have cars, are successful in business and even own businesses.
Some still have simple apartments and lowly 9 to 5 jobs, but they are taking care of themselves and setting examples for their children.

I am sorry that actual facts are so difficult for you....



Arnie, that is a remarkable testimony.
One that I am humbled to admit I do not think I could live up to.
Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Rach1370]

Now, my family came from impoverished Appalachia where people didn't even have running water, much less cable TV, air conditioning, etc. And they were moral ethical people who did not turn to crime because they were poor. So poverty is not why people are in prison. Our poor are vastly richer than 85% of the world's population.

A very, very good point.

Right......the people on government assistant are lazy - the ones hand picked by private citizens are hard workers......dream on Foreigner

Well, actually he's right. There are many, many people who take advantage of Government's attempts to help people. Take, for example where I live. I'm on a pension because I've got a Chronic Illness and just can't work/look after my family at the same time. But in my town there is a woman who has many children...every time her benefits are nearly up, she pops out another one. She also receives more money because she's "single"...lives by herself. She most certainly lives by herself, but she's not single. The father or her children has a full time job, but lives one town over...they 'visit' on weekends. That way she receives considerable government money for each of her children, plus more for being a single parent, plus the full time income of her 'partner'. Now consider another lady I know. Her son is wildly autistic. He's 18, not yet toilet trained, can't talk, can't go to school. This lady and her husband struggle to care for him...he is violent...they have teeth mark scars all over them. And yet there is simply not enough money to help them care for him...or even give them a day's break here or there.
There is something broken in the system...sure, while people are creating the system it will always be broken, but if dishonest people would stop feeling entitled to 'free money'...it would be a good start...don't you think??

 

[aspen]

Rach - you can always find people who take advantage of every system known to man. It is no excuse to stop assisting people. My problem is that Christians seem to fly off the handle about government waste when it comes to helping the poor, but simply ignore comparable waste in the military. As if the military is being funded by nontaxpayers money and social services for the poor is reaching directly into every rich person's pocket. It is total denial and frankly, dishonest. Jesus never told us to fund the military, he told us to help the poor - not the poor we find to be acceptable.

 

[Brother James]

All of those programs cost taxpayers money - and many of the people here think that taxpayer money should not be spent on the poor.

You seem to believe there are two kinds of people, those who put no restraints on government aid because they are compassionate, and those who believe the poor should be left to die in the streets because they want their grannies thrown off of cliffs, dirty water, dirty air, and who probably cook babies in their microwaves to have for dinner.

I have never met a person who thought that taxpayer money should not be spent on the poor. I think I would find your definition of "poor" to be rather bizzarre, however. I'm not sure you know what it is to be poor. Have you ever been poor? Have you ever taken a bath in a wash tub? Have you ever used an outhouse as your regular means of dealing with bodily elimination? Have you ever gone to bed hungry? I suspect your answer to these questions would be "no". My answer to every one of them is "yes". Yet those on the left, in their hyperbolic zeal, tell me I hate the poor. People who have never themselves been poor and have really no idea what it means to be poor.

I don't suffer lectures from people on the left about the "poor" very well. Most who fancy themselves to be the "compassionate advocates" for the poor have no idea what they are doing. They would keep the poor in bondage for a lifetime and for generations. All out of good intentions, of course.

There are many, many people who take advantage of Government's attempts to help people.

Anywhere betweeen 22% and 30% of the billions paid out to the "poor" through the Earned Income Tax Credit are paid out on fraudulent claims. Anyone who advocates for rooting out the fraud faces howls of protests from the Congressional Black Caucus and the left in general. The argue, "why don't you go after the fat cats with off shore accounts?" As if fraud by people the EITC was not intended for is justified because other classes of people cheat on the taxes too!

I knew a woman named Kay years ago who had a 15 year old daughter. She collected Aid for Depenent Children, medicaie, food stamps, etc. She also sold pot on the side for extra income. When she discovered that she would be thrown off those programs when her daughter turned 16 she intentionally got herself pregnant. She laughed and said, "If they think I'm going out and getting a job at this point in my life they're nuts!" Yes, despite what people on the left say, there really are such people. I've known them personally. That one was a friend of an in-law. Despicable but true.

Jesus never told us to fund the military, he told us to help the poor - not the poor we find to be acceptable.

Do you think He told us to help the poor with the money that was in someone else's pocket?

 

[aspen]

You seem to believe there are two kinds of people, those who put no restraints on government aid because they are compassionate, and those who believe the poor should be left to die in the streets because they want their grannies thrown off of cliffs, dirty water, dirty air, and who probably cook babies in their microwaves to have for dinner.

I have never met a person who thought that taxpayer money should not be spent on the poor. I think I would find your definition of "poor" to be rather bizzarre, however. I'm not sure you know what it is to be poor. Have you ever been poor? Have you ever taken a bath in a wash tub? Have you ever used an outhouse as your regular means of dealing with bodily elimination? Have you ever gone to bed hungry? I suspect your answer to these questions would be "no". My answer to every one of them is "yes". Yet those on the left, in their hyperbolic zeal, tell me I hate the poor. People who have never themselves been poor and have really no idea what it means to be poor.

I don't suffer lectures from people on the left about the "poor" very well. Most who fancy themselves to be the "compassionate advocates" for the poor have no idea what they are doing. They would keep the poor in bondage for a lifetime and for generations. All out of good intentions, of course.



Anywhere betweeen 22% and 30% of the billions paid out to the "poor" through the Earned Income Tax Credit are paid out on fraudulent claims. Anyone who advocates for rooting out the fraud faces howls of protests from the Congressional Black Caucus and the left in general. The argue, "why don't you go after the fat cats with off shore accounts?" As if fraud by people the EITC was not intended for is justified because other classes of people cheat on the taxes too!

I knew a woman named Kay years ago who had a 15 year old daughter. She collected Aid for Depenent Children, medicaie, food stamps, etc. She also sold pot on the side for extra income. When she discovered that she would be thrown off those programs when her daughter turned 16 she intentionally got herself pregnant. She laughed and said, "If they think I'm going out and getting a job at this point in my life they're nuts!" Yes, despite what people on the left say, there really are such people. I've known them personally. That one was a friend of an in-law. Despicable but true.



Do you think He told us to help the poor with the money that was in someone else's pocket?

Well Brother James,

I am wondering why you assume that I have never been poor? Is it because I have decided that I would like our taxes spent on social services rather than manufactured wars? Why is it that I have to be poor in order to advocate for services that help people who are poor? Do people have to serve in foreign wars before they get to decide that spending other people's money in Iraq and Afghanistan is good?

For the record, from the age of 8 until 15, I lived in a shack in the country with no electricity or plumping - we did have running water. My father was disabled; my sister was recovering from a pedestrian/car accident and my mom was bringing in 10,000 dollars a year selling vegetables from a 1/4 acre garden and while I was raising chickens, sheep, and cows and working on other local ranches. Before, losing our house in the mission district of SF, my father worked 60 hour weeks in construction. Not all poor people are lazy and not all liberals live in ivory towers. Today, I have two jobs - I work for a ministry that helps kids that are homeless and hospice. I make enough money to eat, have a roof over my head, and pay my bills. I am grateful for everything God have allowed me to manage.

Unless you believe you must adopted a child in order have an opinion against abortion; it is hypocritical of you to expect that only poor people can have an opinion about funding for social services.

I never said that you hate the poor.

I would like to introduce you to Strat and Foreigner - there, now you have met two people who do not believe taxpayer money 'other people's money" should be spent on the poor.

So, what I am really left wondering about is the very issue people seem to be avoiding:

1. Is it really possible for us to claim that we have earned anything that God has given to us, in this life?

2. If we really own nothing - how can any of you claim that the government is trying to steal your money to give it to the poor?

3. How can anyone here claim that poor people are poor because they are lazy when jobs that are open to the poor are some of the hardest, labor intensive jobs available? And many poor people have two or even three of these jobs. When CEOs drive companies out of business they go to the company next door - when poor people are injured from their crappy job without benefits, they are out of luck.

4. How can advocates for private donations over government intervention for the poor have a leg to stand on when the reason we need government intervention is because so many crappy companies do not offer healthcare in the first place? So much for private intervention.....

 

[Foreigner]

Now, my family came from impoverished Appalachia where people didn't even
have running water, much less cable TV, air conditioning, etc. And they
were moral ethical people who did not turn to crime because they were
poor. So poverty is not why people are in prison. Our poor are vastly
richer than 85% of the world's population.

-- Excellent point. Al Gore made the observation in the mid-90s that there are a larger percentage of Americans now classified as "poor" and eligible
for public assistance than when Welfare was first instituted in the 60s.

He stressed what LBJ said in that for the majority of those on the program it was supposed to be a TEMPORARY leg up or a "resting point" on the way
to self sufficiency.

Gore echoed Clinton boss in saying that for many it had now become a sense of entitlement "which was never supposed to happen."

He (of course) agreed with Clinton that for many, it has become a crutch or excuse for many not to live up to their personal responsibilities.

But for some on the left, no amount of assistance will ever be enough
until everybody has exactly the same amout from some mythical fixed pie.
And that kind of policy mindset will doom everyone, the poor and the
middle class.

-- You hit it on the head.
Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with a system like this is that "eventually you run out of other people's money."

But in my town there is a woman who has many children...every time her
benefits are nearly up, she pops out another one. She also receives more
money because she's "single"...lives by herself. She most certainly lives
by herself, but she's not single. The father or her children has a full
time job, but lives one town over...they 'visit' on weekends. That way she
receives considerable government money for each of her children, plus more
for being a single parent, plus the full time income of her 'partner'.

-- Rach, this is far from unique. The same story is happening by the tens of thousands across the country today.
I have a friend who works for IL Medicaid. She mentions that there are scores of single mothers on the system who have five children, sometimes by as many as four different men - none of the men paying child support.
She points out that many were on the program from their first child onward.

She says a subordinate of hers was fired because a woman IL Medicaid called wanting to confirm that she could take her four children to a clinic in Las Vegas to address pink eye. When the subordinate told the woman that IL Medicaid coverage does not cross state lines, she freaked and screamed that "her insurance" should be accepted everywhere.

Her subordinate was fired because he told her that it wasn't HER insurance, it was the STATE'S insurance and they were allowing her to be on it at absolutely no cost to her. He then said that since a large part of his salary goes for insurance for him, his wife, and his two children, he can't afford to go to Las Vegas.
His honesty cost him his job.

There is something broken in the system...sure, while people are creating the system it will always be broken, but if dishonest people would stop
feeling entitled to 'free money'...it would be a good start...don't you think??

-- Exactly. Spot on.

Rach - you can always find people who take advantage of every system known to man. It is no excuse to stop assisting people.

-- Absolutely FALSE dichotomy.
No one, NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON here is saying that we should stop assisting people. I myself have said more than once in this thread alone that there are indeed millions in this country for whom Welfare is a decent and fair thing to do.

The point that you keep trying to blur is that there are also MILLION in this country who are receving gov't funds who should NOT be.
You are already on the record in this thread as saying you don't care about the theft they are committing to the tune of tens of billions a year.

And just because "you can always find people who take advantage of every system" doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything about it if you can.

My problem is that Christians seem to fly off the handle about government waste when it comes to helping the poor, but simply ignore comparable waste in the military.

-- Sorry Aspen, but having "no problem" with $100 Billion / year in waste in Welfare and Medicaid but being absolutely outraged in fraud and waste in Defense is nothing but selective outrage. Translation: Nothing to be taken seriously.

Jesus never told us to fund the military, he told us to help the poor - not the poor we find to be acceptable.

-- Ahem....
Jesus said "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars."
Do you really not comprehend that those taxes Jesus said "Render unto Caesar" financed the military that occupied the very country in which Jesus lived?

And as far as "the poor we find to be acceptable," that statement is absolutely ridiculous.
Those that choose not to work, but rather scam the system and take money from Uncle Sam they don't deserve are not "poor."
And Paul had a word for them in 2 Thess 3:10.

Using your implied definition of "the poor" then my wife and I should be able to quit our jobs, apply for food stamps, EBT cards, Medicaid, etc. and we would be the "poor" that you feel Uncle Sam should have no issue with financing. That's simply sad.




.

 

[Brother James]

Well Brother James,

I am wondering why you assume that I have never been poor? Is it because I have decided that I would like our taxes spent on social services rather than manufactured wars? Why is it that I have to be poor in order to advocate for services that help people who are poor? Do people have to serve in foreign wars before they get to decide that spending other people's money in Iraq and Afghanistan is good?

I don't assume anything, I asked. Someone who has lived in true poverty is in a position to know what true poverty is. What I wonder is how a person who truly knows poverty could consider someone who lives in air conditioning with good clean running water, who has cable television and a cell phone, and who is overweight from overeating, is so poor that others need to provide them with even more. The "poor" Jesus spoke of are not the kinds of people that are called "poor" in America. So, in asking whether you had lived without such niceties of life, I was trying to see what you are talking about when you talk about the "poor".

Not all poor people are lazy and not all liberals live in ivory towers. Today, I have two jobs - I work for a ministry that helps kids that are homeless and hospice. I make enough money to eat, have a roof over my head, and pay my bills. I am grateful for everything God have allowed me to manage.

That's great, but I never said poor people are lazy. We should all be grateful for what God has blessed us with, including the "poor" who were blessed to be born in America rather than Bangladesh.

Unless you believe you must adopted a child in order have an opinion against abortion; it is hypocritical of you to expect that only poor people can have an opinion about funding for social services.

I might indeed by a hypocrite, but not for the false accusations you are making against me. I never made any such statement. You just made that up as a false strawman summary of my position, seemingly so you could call me a hypocrite. That is a Saul Alinsky tactic if I ever saw one.

1. Is it really possible for us to claim that we have earned anything that God has given to us, in this life?

All that we have is God's. We own nothing. He entrusts things to our care for a little while and then we are gone. What we do during that little time is something we will answer to God for. Anyone who is stingy or greedy will answer to God for that. Not to me, though. We are not in disagreement, I believe greed is a sin.

2. If we really own nothing - how can any of you claim that the government is trying to steal your money to give it to the poor?

Using the government as a mechanism to reallocate resources against the will of people is the issue. Not whether we should be generous in helping those less fortunate, but what social mechanism is best to ensure the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people. You see, work too is a spiritual thing. To work for what one has is more enriching that being given great wealth. I'm glad that I never inherited a dime from anyone and was not given anything by anyone. It makes me a better person to work. Without work, I become weak and docile and controllable. I need work. Everyone needs productive work of some kind to do. Those who create a system that deprives people of the spiritually enhancing need and opportunity for work are doing them a great disservice. I'm not talking about the quadraplegic, the disabled, the blind, etc. Society suffers when people who could work are allowed to subsist without work.

3. How can anyone here claim that poor people are poor because they are lazy when jobs that are open to the poor are some of the hardest, labor intensive jobs available? And many poor people have two or even three of these jobs. When CEOs drive companies out of business they go to the company next door - when poor people are injured from their crappy job without benefits, they are out of luck.

Work is supposed to be hard. Hard work is good. I offer jobs to people in my own business who laugh and say they'd rather collect unemployment. Hard work seems to be anathama to so many people. Hey, I've worked a full time job in a steel mill and gone to college full time AT THE SAME TIME. That was hard. I was supporting a family, so I had to work HARD. Guess what? It didn't kill me! It was a hot crappy job and I bear the scars from burns on my body to this day from that steel mill. Would I have been better off if you had shared your income with me so I didn't have to work so hard? Not a chance!

 

[aspen]

Hey Brother James - I appreciated your post. For the record, there were several comments I made in my post that were not meant to be directed at you - one of them was suggesting that you believe poor people are lazy - I realize you never claimed that. There are many people on this thread who are disagreeing with me on this topic and I have lapsed into speaking generally, when I addressed my post to you, I apologize. I actually agree with most of your response, especially that hard work is good for people - all I would add is that hard work needs to be compensated for reasonably. Wall street bankers do not work harder than field workers but their salaries are vastly different (just an example)

 

[Foreigner]

I actually agree with most of your response, especially that hard work is good for people - all I would add is that hard work needs to be compensated for reasonably. Wall street bankers do not work harder than field workers but their salaries are vastly different (just an example)

-- Wall street bankers have Master's degrees, are responsible for the correct handling of millions of dollars of other people's money, and must have vast amounts of financial, legal, and investment information at their fingertips at any one time.

The salary for that justifiably trumps the salary for someone who does nothing but picks lettuce and sticks it in a cardboard box several hours a day.

Or to put it another way, do you really believe that a job that requires a minimum of a Master's degree should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a job that has no other requirements than a strong back and a pair of work gloves?


-- A doctor graduates from college and medical school, can diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses, and preform a wide variety of medical procedures. They are held accountable for their knowledge and can be sued for millions for malpractice.
Do you really feel there should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a person wearing a headset answering car insurance questions in a call center?


-- A teacher gets a four-year degree, in many cases even a master's degree, and obtains a license to teach in a specific state. They are responsible for instructing children and ensuring they actually learn what is being taught them. They prepare lesson plans, multi-media presentations, create and grade tests, provide individual tutoring, etc. etc.
Do you really feel they should not have pay that is "vastly different" from a person at McDonald's asking you if you "wish to superize that?"

Don't worry, Aspen. I don't expect a response.
There really is no way to defend income redistribution on the level you support.

Work is supposed to be hard. Hard work is good. I offer jobs to people in my own business who laugh and say they'd rather collect unemployment. Hard work seems to be anathama to so many people. Hey, I've worked a full time job in a steel mill and gone to college full time AT THE SAME TIME. That was hard. I was supporting a family, so I had to work HARD. Guess what? It didn't kill me! It was a hot crappy job and I bear the scars from burns on my body to this day from that steel mill. Would I have been better off if you had shared your income with me so I didn't have to work so hard? Not a chance!

-- Excellent post.
One of the other unspoken tragedies of allowing those who can work but choose not to to continue to receive gov't funds is what they are instilling in their children. Instead of teaching their children the value of work, self-reliance and dignity, they are indoctrinating them into a mindset of victimhood and entitlement.

That in and of itself is a form of child abuse.

 

[HammerStone]

Wall street bankers have Master's degrees, are responsible for the correct handling of millions of dollars of other people's money, and must have vast amounts of financial, legal, and investment information at their fingertips at any one time.

Well, can I interject another thought tangental to this one?

I've seen this in BOTH conservative and liberal sectors, but many are quick to point out that Wall Street Bankers don't actually produce anything. Contrary to even the Robber Barons and fantastically rich of the 19[sup]th[/sup] and 20[sup]th[/sup] centuries, it's all accounting and numbers on paper, there are no goods. No steal, no wool, no oil, etc. Even for those who deal with commodities, they'll probably never take delivery of a barrel or bushel in their lives. So they're generating wealth, but it's not passed on to the population. There are no goods to buy, services to improve, etc. It remains to be seen how this affects the overall economy, but one would think that at some point, you are going to exhaust wealth generated off of other wealth.

On top of that, enter derivatives, which no one understands. You're paying bankers for doing something they don't understand. Oh, and by the way, if they screw it up enough, it could collapse the economy into a severe recession or depression. Again, there is no mastery here. Even a PhD's mind boggles.

I'm not attempting to justify full-on redistribution of wealth, but I don't see where the status quo is acceptable, either. A Doctor might not master all disease in this fallen world, but he produces healthy or healed patients to at least some degree.

Perhaps Magaret Thatcher's quote applies to this scenario as well?

At the end of the day, we mostly subscribe to the necessary evil argument of government. Yes, even Aspen will say that there are things where government doesn't need to stick its nose! (</end cheap yet witty & funny potshot at my beloved liberal brother>) However, there are points where if someone (or something) has a detrimental affect on the entire populace, then the government is expected to step in. An example would be to provide for the common defense.

We cannot be expected to field our own military divisions, APCs, tanks, missles, warships, etc., so we band under the government and the government provides that social contract for us. In addition, the government provides local police forces to ensure that laws are enforced and people are treated fairly. Those are necessary services of government. Then we jump to the more grey area of medicare - what happens if all the elderly are suddenly taken off medicare? Obviously some will be forced to use their money to buy private insurance, but many will not be able to hold on to what modest home they have left. They might not have surviving family members to share the burden.

It sounds Libertarian sexy to say Medicare needs to be scrapped, but there's not really an alternative. Can we combat waste? Yes, absolutely. But we have to get at the mark that every attempt to reform or cut waste is not an attempt to place the poor out on the streets. Afterall, if the Government were to go fiscally under, who the heck protects the poor, then?

We Christians have to keep this in mind.

 

[Brother James]

Wall street bankers do not work harder than field workers but their salaries are vastly different (just an example)

Well, let's look at it in more realistic terms, because most workers are not wall street bankers. I worked for 20 years as a software engineer and worked my way up to senior management. I went to college to acquire skills so that I could better support my family and help others (though for much of my life I wasn't much concerned with helping anyone but myself, but that's another story). I did not steal from anyone or abuse anyone. I merely created a lot of value for the companies and shareholders for whom I worked and they compensated me well for it. Someone who is skilled and very productive in creating value deserves to be compensated more highly than someone who creates only slightly more value than what they are paid. If I hire you to produce vegetables and you produce $15 worth of vegetables for every hour you worked, how could I pay you $20 an hour? You see, compensation is tied to the value that job produces. That is why some make more than others.

I might agree that a CEO is not worth $10 million a year, but that is the business of the shareholders. It is not the business of the production line worker.

 

[soupy]

One simple problem with the government taxing me for these programs, they take away money, I as a Christian can better contribute for better purposes.
The government uses the money for programs that seemingly dimish people's need for Christ. We know He is not allowed in our government.

 

[Brother James]

Well, can I interject another thought tangental to this one?

I've seen this in BOTH conservative and liberal sectors, but many are quick to point out that Wall Street Bankers don't actually produce anything. Contrary to even the Robber Barons and fantastically rich of the 19[sup]th[/sup] and 20[sup]th[/sup] centuries, it's all accounting and numbers on paper, there are no goods. No steal, no wool, no oil, etc. Even for those who deal with commodities, they'll probably never take delivery of a barrel or bushel in their lives. So they're generating wealth, but it's not passed on to the population. There are no goods to buy, services to improve, etc. It remains to be seen how this affects the overall economy, but one would think that at some point, you are going to exhaust wealth generated off of other wealth.

On top of that, enter derivatives, which no one understands. You're paying bankers for doing something they don't understand. Oh, and by the way, if they screw it up enough, it could collapse the economy into a severe recession or depression. Again, there is no mastery here. Even a PhD's mind boggles.

I'm not sure where you got your opinion that the bankers create nothing of value. In a capitalist economy there must be capital. They raise that capital to fuel the development of companies (read "jobs"). And I understand derivatives very well. In fact, as a software engineer, I developed software to help equities and commodities traders do their jobs more efficiently. There is nothing evil about "derivatives".

If I buy a ship full of crude oil at $95 a barrel and have it shipped to my refinery, I am taking on risk. If the value of that crude drops to $80 en route, I'll loose a ton of money. So, I buy a "put" options contract, which is a derivative. It allows me to sell that cargo of crude for no less than $92 a barrel. That mitigates my risk significantly, and I pay a premium for you to take on that risk. If the price stays the same, you pocket the premium and I go about my business. Laying off risk in this way is fundamental to how our commodities markets work. Famers cannot take on the full risk that an entire growing season's crop will fail, so they either buy crop insurance or they buy futures contracts that mitigate their risks. An investor takes on the risk because he thinks he can make a profit, and the farmer is protected.

Just because our education system doesn't teach students how the financial markets work doesn't mean that thier functioning does not create value. It certainly does. Unfortunately, when people are ignorant of such things they are easily led about by the nose by people who can make it all sound like nonsense. It is not nonsense. Without it we would not have the financial prosperity we enjoy. We'd go back to being an agrarian society with each person eeking out a living on their own little patch of dirt.

 

[HammerStone]

I'm not sure where you got your opinion that the bankers create nothing of value. In a capitalist economy there must be capital. They raise that capital to fuel the development of companies (read "jobs").

Well, since you went off in the other direction, let me clarify my mildly ambiguous statement. I never said that nothing of value was created, but certainly no tangible asset is created, quite unlike any historical period. In other words, even the lettuce packer inputs into an eventual end product. Something is made and delivered. The banker does not produce the oil, nor the good. He bets on them, aided by technology that can drive up the price in seconds or minutes.

With Wall Street bankers (explicitly Wall Street bankers), they're doing nothing more than conducting a bet on the risk of the investment. If wealth begat wealth, we would simply print more money and let the government hire worker after worker to pay them a completely inflated wage. Obiously most conservatives argue against that for a reason.

The problem with Wall Street Banking is that the money ends up in the hands of the same group. It's concentrated at the top, and even the most conservative of NGOs will bear that out. Again, no tangible asset is produced. What wealth is produced generally returns to the Investment Bank or to the employee. Of course we know that some of that trickles down and is spent in the local economy, etc, but increasingly the US is dividing into super zips. The Sociologist Charles Murray defines this in detail in his book Coming Apart. It's a symptom of the malaise, but we have a class producing wealth without producing a tangible asset. It's glorified gambling, beholden to all of the same impulses of regular gambling. Only those impulses now influence things like transportation costs and food prices.

If I buy a ship full of crude oil at $95 a barrel and have it shipped to my refinery, I am taking on risk. If the value of that crude drops to $80 en route, I'll loose a ton of money. So, I buy a "put" options contract, which is a derivative. It allows me to sell that cargo of crude for no less than $92 a barrel. That mitigates my risk significantly, and I pay a premium for you to take on that risk. If the price stays the same, you pocket the premium and I go about my business. Laying off risk in this way is fundamental to how our commodities markets work. Famers cannot take on the full risk that an entire growing season's crop will fail, so they either buy crop insurance or they buy futures contracts that mitigate their risks. An investor takes on the risk because he thinks he can make a profit, and the farmer is protected.

That's an excellent example of a simple derivative. Yet, with your programming background in finance, you're surely aware that when one mentions deriatives these days, you're not talking about simple insurance contracts, but are instead focused on vehicles such as credit default swaps. I don't need to educate you on those, I am sure, but for our other readers, you end up with complex risk passed on through mutliple contracts (far beyond a single insurance contract). In other words, say that 8 different companies trade mortgage notes. The risk is bundled and rebundled as it passes from bank to bank, contract to contract. Employment slows just a hair and those bundled mortgages begin to default, and suddenly that risk is passed across multiple companies, affecting them all. We don't have computer programs to understand that level of complexity, period.

I'm not here to insult, but if you wrote computer programs to solve the above problems (all of them), then you'd be a billionaire and not posting here. I have no doubt that you are intelligent, but I'd be seeing your face on every news show and magazine around.

As to other "opinions" on the matter:

http://www.imaginativeconservative.org/2012/08/casino-capitalists-playing-with-fire.html - Patrick Buchanan
http://theinvestmentsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/buffett-on-credit-default-swaps.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-NHf7K7qSA - Warren Buffet

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/07/credit-default-swaps-theyre-still-here-and-still-d.aspx#.UFixp1LAek0
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/03/why-credit-default-swaps-are-dangerous/7044/
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/14/11700520-jpmorgan-losses-revive-worries-that-washington-is-unable-to-regulate-wall-street?lite

Those are pretty educated opinions from across the spectrum.

Just because our education system doesn't teach students how the financial markets work doesn't mean that thier functioning does not create value. It certainly does. Unfortunately, when people are ignorant of such things they are easily led about by the nose by people who can make it all sound like nonsense. It is not nonsense. Without it we would not have the financial prosperity we enjoy. We'd go back to being an agrarian society with each person eeking out a living on their own little patch of dirt.

Well, while you're arguing here to the choir (and I wholly agree that our nonextant financial literacy in our entire education system stinks), you're not going to teach credit default swaps to the average person. You might as well have a course on how to gamble at the local casino.

I'm not arguing, again, that it doesn't add [temporal] value. I'm arguing that nothing sustainable is produced, no tangible asset is produced that betters society.

Edit:

Found one more link I was searching for:
http://intractability.princeton.edu/blog/2009/10/new-paper-on-complexity-and-financial-derivatives/
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rongge/derivativeFAQ.html (Paper FAQ)

The paper shows that in certain settings it can be computationally infeasible to verify that a financial derivative such as a collateralized default obligation (CDO) is properly constructed, in the sense that there is sufficient diversity of assets so that the derivative is not overly sensitive to some small segment of the market. Moreover, it may be possible to generate derivatives that are sensitive to such a small market segment, but are indistinguishable from properly diverse ones, implying an opportunity for the seller to make a profit if he has private information that a particular segment is worth less than it appears (i.e., a "lemon").

 

[Foreigner]

Hammerstone, you generate some very interesting considerations.
I will only comment on a couple.

When you say "So they're generating wealth, but it's not passed on to the population," I would agree that is true for the general population, however it is passed on to those within the population who contract (pay) to have them manage their money and invest to increase it.
When I see those digital numbers in my savings and investment accounts increase when I check them online, I feel they have "delivered the goods" they were paid to deliver.

You are correct in what you say about the military.
Liberal San Francisco supervisor Gerardo Sandoval argued on (what was then) Hannity and Colmes that the United States should completely disband our military. Not reduce, disband.
Even Alan Colmes questioned his sanity. When asked who would defend us if we were attacked, be said, "our police and our coast guard."
http://www.bestandwo...com/v/88401.htm


There is indeed great waste and abuse in the military. I have always advocated addressing that simply because of how great it is.
On the flip side, a strong US military has deterred many a conflict over the last 60 years. A free Europe over the past six decades is proof.
The cost in American lives and finances would have been much greater if a weak military would have not deterred a Soviet invasion of Europe.

Manpower and firepower must be maintained in order to be able to address a threat, often with very little ramp up time.
I would also point out that every single contractor is providing something to defend the U.S. and is employing Americans and providing for their families.

People here that support Welfare for those who can work but don't have no problem with the U.S. getting nothing in return from them.
They seem to miss that military contractors at least give the U.S. something in return for their money, and in the process provide income for millions of their employees and their familites.


Medicare cannot be scrapped. But with Trillions in unfunded liability, it needs to be tweaked, at the minimum.
At least someone is putting ideas forth on how to address it. It is not realistic to simply criticize the plans put forward without presenting a counter-plan.
It is going to have to be fixed, or it will simply end up dying, along with the people on it.


Medicaid and Welfare generate over $100 Billion a year in fraud, waste, and abuse.
Clinton showed that Welfare reform is indeed possible and that those who shouldn't be on the program can be addressed.

Requiring those who are healthy enough, but do not have work to perform other services to justify their checks has been shown to go a long way to convincing those who can work that perhaps entering the workforce is a good idea after all.
If they can't loaf, they figure they might as well find something that they may enjoy, or that gives them potential for growth, promotion and pay raises.

The CBO had a report out a couple of years ago showing that HUGE numbers of medical visits for those on Medicaid were for things that weren't necessary, but that people chose to be seen for anyway since it wasn't going to cost them anything.

The idea was put for that if a simple co-pay of three dollars a visit was implemented, it would greatly reduce frivolous visits and not be an undo burden for the families. Especially since emergency services would have no co-pays.

Other things that have been suggested are now allowing Welfare payments to be used to purchase things such as sodas, candy, steak, shrimp, alcohol, etc. etc. etc.

I was surprised to find that some still still allow using Welfare EBT cards to purchase cigarettes.
It wasn't like that when I lived in MN. I remember when living in our first apartment, our neighbor across the hall offered us a $20 food stamp for $10 in cash so she could buy cigarettes. She was generally upset when my wife told her no.
The US gov't is extremely busy trying to force a healthy diet on school children. The thought is that there is then no reason that families should be able to use gov't money to purchase that wish is not healthy, or can be considered a "luxury" item.

EBT Cards were used to draw cash in Casinos, Strip Clubs and bingo facilities in CA, CO and MI.
http://www.denverpos...ews/ci_20058326
http://www.usatoday....-gambling_N.htm
http://articles.lati...asinos-20100624
How can this possibly happen?
How does this help put food on the tables of "poor" families?
If you can afford to go to casinos, strip clubs and bingo halls and spend gov't money for your entertainment, then perhaps the gov't should investigate just how much money you really should be receiving.

Once these loopholes are gone and these cards can only be used for food (and food that are not luxury foods like steak and shrimp) then the funds will be used for what they were originally designed for.

Also, reduce the amount that can be taken out as straight cash every month.
That will greatly reduce the money being used for things other than food and family needs.
Arrange so that the majority of the funds can only be used in grocery stores or the like.
Since that is mainly what the funds are for, what would be the problem with that?




.