[quote]Fonebone wrote:
OK dermo, here’s part deux. Happy reading!
dermo wrote:
I do understand the difference. My point is that many people who are outraged by individual welfare are often indifferent towards corporate welfare.
Well, I try to avoid using Nader-isms, so I will assume that by “corporate welfare” you are referring to things like tax breaks for companies (if there are other things that fall in this category, please let me know). As I stated (and you agreed), corporations don’t pay any taxes. To clarify, the consumer picks up the tab in the increased price of the goods/services sold. Therefore, corporate taxes and breaks thereupon are a moot issue in my opinion, since we agree they don’t really exist.
BUT, I will state broadly that I oppose governments using tax policy to influence behavior (e.g. tax breaks for buying hybrid cars), and I suppose this principle would in general apply to corporations too, but frankly I haven’t considered it much until now.
At worst, though, a “tax break” would seem to allow a company that much more to invest into the business, which, as I noted above, is good for employment and for the economy overall.
I think you mentioned farm subsidies. I am not fully versed in this issue, but as I understand the program, agricultural commodities are subsidized ostensibly to encourage production, supplement farmers’ incomes and bolster supply on international markets. However, this keeps prices artificially low by taking the natural movement of the markets out of the equation (commodity prices go down, but no problem, here comes the government to make up the difference), and favors large “factory” farms while unduly burdening non-subsidized and family farms, which are all but non-existent anymore. If there were anything that I might be inclined to call “corporate welfare,” this would be it. And I am indeed opposed. Government has no business funding private enterprise with public funds, and shame on those who accept it year after year.
The recent bankruptcy bill makes it very difficult for individuals to declare bankruptcy, but does not toughen the standards for corporate bankruptcy.
OK, but when you get right down to it, what are corporations? They are PEOPLE! I am not arguing for or against any particular bankruptcy laws, nor am I advocating companies being irresponsible borrowers (anymore than I would encourage people to be), but if a corporation goes under, so do at least some the jobs associated with it. Doesn’t it seem the least bit beneficial for a company to try to and reorganize? Companies often emerge from bankruptcy as much stronger entities (if they aren’t liquidated, which is another story entirely).
If you asserting that we should not be compelled towards charitable giving, then define charitable giving? Does it include education funding, bailing out corporations, and faith-based initiatives?
I define charitable giving as the willful forfeiture of personal wealth, income or assets to any person, group or cause that the giver deems worthy of his or her gift, based upon his or her personal convictions. The answers to your examples, in order, are: a) at the local level only, b) no, and c) no (assuming you are referring to the use of tax monies).
As for Jesus, he provided the template for how we should live our lives. Is it unreasonable that a christian nation should model its policies to be consistent with how Jesus lived his life, with an emphasis on helping the poor?
As long as by “nation”, you mean the people of that nation rather than its government, we are in total agreement.
As soon as the people delegate their own personal responsibilities, and duties (yes, duties) to their fellow man, over to the government (and this could refer to charity, education, child rearing, etc., etc., ad infinitum), they take themselves out of the equation and are in fact derelict of their responsibilities to their neighbor as per Jesus’ teaching.
Jesus encouraged the kind of charity that arises out of genuine, sacrificial love for your neighbor, as the Bible puts it. As seems to be the core issue in this thread, this is very different from the coercive nature of our socialistic tax system. Make sense?
WOW! Sorry for the long-ass post! =O[/quote]
Damn it, Fonebone! Just when I’m about to give up on the guys in this thread, you post one of the best I’ve read yet.
One of the reasons I post threads like this is, that I want the minority, the people who think and produce, to know that they have a moral advocate. I am a teacher and I know that someone has to produce all the things we need to live. The focus has always been on ‘the needy’. What about those who pay the bills? What about those who get taxed to pay for it all? Who speaks for them? The seething hatred for businessmen is so rampant as to be unconscionable.
I love to point out blatant logical inconsistencies (like cursing the feds for not protecting New Orleans, but then wanting the same idiots to rebuild it) and it simply gets ignored. Typical liberals, immune to truth. Another guy passes judgment on the work of a person he’s never read. “Oh, well. So what?” Such people are hitchikers on the backs of those who produce.
I wonder if they under stand the meaning of ‘Atlas Shrugged’? Here’s a quote: “If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, and you saw that the more he tried to hold the world up, the more the world bore down upon him. What would you tell him to do?” “Shrug.” (Shortened for length).
So, Harris, FightinIrish, all the rest, I guess it boils down to this: since you are so adamant about how I am ignorant and you are correct, please proceed to give all your money to those in need. You, who created a government that robs the productive for the benefit of the non-productive, DO IT! Feed all your wealth to the lazy, the incompetent, the fools. You want it so bad, finish the job.
And by the way, Harris, wouldn’t you suspect a site that doesn’t even mention Rand. What a moron!