Like Button

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Imagine

In the President's State of the Union address, he started with the troops that returned home from Iraq. Turning to the "obstructionist" Republicans, he said, "Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example."

Now, to be fair, he indicated what he meant. He referred to their "courage, selflessness, and teamwork". He spoke of how "they exceed all expectations." He indicated that "They don’t obsess over their differences." He said, "They focus on the mission at hand. They work together." And, of course, he meant that those dirty, rotten Republicans were selfish cowards who fell short of expectations, obsessed over differences, lost focus, and failed to play nice with other children. We got it. Truth or not, we got it.

I wonder, however, what else could be gleaned from this imagination exercise. "Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example." Well, let's see, what else can we get from the example of the military in Iraq? Perhaps we could conclude that some civilian casualties are inevitable? Maybe we could suggest that Americans should just follow orders from their superiors, shut up, and do what they're told? Or maybe we could see it as a call to go in, destroy what the President deems worthy of destruction, and then pull out to leave the mess to collapse on itself?

Now, I know that President Obama didn't mean any of that. I'm just saying that I can certainly see all of that in his words, his actions, and his intents for our future. He is anxious that "everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules", by which he means "the rich lose more of what they earn while we give more to whomever we deem worthy, 'everyone does their fair share' means the middle class workers bear the ultimate load, paying their own way without help while the upper class pays their unfair share and the lower income categories pay less than nothing, and that this is 'the same set of rules'."

I'm not looking for a government handout, but I can also be quite certain that there won't be one for me, as an example. I work hard, pay my bills, don't borrow more than I can afford to repay, don't live above my means. For that my reward from the government is ... nothing. The upper income category (I am already beginning to hate the use of the term "class" in these discussions) works hard, gets a larger income, invests that income wisely, and pays the majority of the taxes gathered by the government (85%). For that, the President wishes to penalize them because it is "unfair". And, of course, for those at the lower income side, the goal is to give them more income because, you see, more income is the answer. Take from the rich, give to the poor, and the poor will be better off.

This is the president's vision. It is the vision of most of the Democrats. It is certainly the vision of the disenfranchised. Take from those who have and give it to ... me! No, not all who are in financial trouble fall in that category. I don't mean to suggest that. But it is naive to suggest that all of America's "poor" (you know, those who have much, much more than the world's poor) are an innocent huddle of humanity struck down by those rich (typically white) folk just in need of a simple handout so they can stand on their own two feet again. So maybe that's what the president had in mind when he imagined what we could do by following the example of the military. Go in and take out the infrastructure, those higher-ups with money. Tear them down and let's see how it works. What could we learn from Iraq? Well, when you take out their structure, they start in-fighting. When you remove the military, they start killing each other. But, no, that won't happen if you create a class difference between those with more money than those with less. No, we're safe. This isn't Iraq. We're much more civilized than that. I mean, look at the Occupy Wall Street folks. Oh, wait, never mind.

20 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

I'm not looking for a government handout, but I can also be quite certain that there won't be one for me,

Just to point out the obvious, you DO get handouts. We all do. We "get" roads and bridges and people to make sure they're safe and police to watch out for speeders. We "get" investments into new and better/safer energy, into and technology. We "get" an educated workforce. We "get" a society where folk don't just die on street corners.

Gov't is not the enemy. We don't always agree with how our money is spent (I sure would like to see the Ron Paul's vision of a much smaller military - I've heard he wants to cut it by 50-75%!), but we all "get" something out of it. We get a workable society that sometimes spends our money in ways we don't approve of and sometimes "gives" benefits to groups we don't think ought to get it (car companies, motorists, the poor, prisoners, oil companies, etc, etc).

The point is, we're all getting something out of the gov't. Some of us (the middle class, the rich included) get more than we ought to get, but we get it nonetheless.

It is wise, I think, to remember all that we all do "get" from gov't before looking to criticize the notion of also letting the poor "get" some benefits along with everyone else.

Fortunately, you nor I have a need for some of the benefits that are available for the least of these, and thus, we have no desire or reason to get those benefits. As it should be.

Stan said...

Is it a handout if I pay for it? If I pay more for it than some, do I get more for what I pay? If others pay far more than I do, do they get more? And if I pay (paid, in my case) for my kids to go to a Christian school, does the government see fit to exempt me from paying for schools?

Currently, the richest 5% of Americans are paying 85% of the tax bill. The lowest 50% are paying nothing. This is the current version of "everyone does their fair share"? No, not at all! "Those dirty rotten rich people need to pay more! I should get to pay less." That would be "their fair share".

I am not opposed to government. I am not opposed to taxes. I am not opposed to helping people in need. I do question whether what is classified as "help" where people end up on the dole for life is "help". And I do not believe that the current populist direction (considering, for instance, the OWS folk) is aimed at "everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules" even though the words are used.

I read recently an article where the author posed this imaginary scenario. Suppose you suddenly had a button in front of you that you could choose to push or not. If you pushed the button, a magic genie would appear and eliminate poverty. All the poor would have sufficient for a comfortable life. The only catch was that it would affect everyone. So when all the poor doubled or tripled or more their current income, so would all the rich. The question, then, would be, "Would you push the button?" It is my suspicion that many of today's society would not because it is really "the rich" who are the enemy and giving them more, even if it solved the problems of the so-called 99%, would be evil. I think that's where we are today.

Dan Trabue said...

You don't pay all the money for the roads, for the bridges, for all our infrastructure, for the investment in all our common needs. You pay PART of it, in taxes.

Similarly, the poor also pay their part in taxes. It is a much smaller part, because they make much less, but that is apt.

The lowest 85% are certainly paying taxes. There are sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. Everyone pays taxes and, depending on how you cut it, the poor pay nearly as much or more as anyone else, percentage-wise.

As to ending up on the dole for life, who does that? Some of the disabled? Some of the mentally ill?

You DO know that TANF ("welfare") is a time-limited benefit, right?

I think probably most folk think a progressive tax scheme is the most fair, the most just. The wealthiest amongst us benefit far more from the system than the poor. Wealthy business owners benefit when there is a healthy, educated workforce, why should they not contribute a larger percentage.

As I've pointed out before, Thomas Jefferson and other founders believed in a progressive scheme (indeed, Jefferson envisioned a system where "all" or "nearly all" of society's needs were paid for by taxes on the wealthy). I suspect that we have a progressive scheme because it is what the majority of your fellow citizens and tax payers think wisest.

Those opposed to progressive taxation will have to do a better job of making their case, it seems to me, because I don't think the message is getting across.

My point is that we all benefit. Motorists, for instance, don't pay their "fair share" of taxes by paying for ALL the roads, etc. Rather, they are subsidized by general taxation (including taxes on those who don't drive). Those with kids in private school STILL benefit from having an educated populace, so it's not like you're losing an investment by supporting public schools.

We ALL are subsidized at least in part. We ALL benefit from the system. I just think it wise to recognize it, otherwise, it sounds a bit as if you're (generic "you") criticizing the poor "moochers," and blaming the least of these for the system's perceived wrongs.

Seems to me.

Stan said...

So, although I pay for it, it is a handout? And although I pay more for it and don't get any more benefit out if it than those who get less, that's fair?

I haven't suggested some sort of flat tax. I haven't even suggested a change to the current progressive tax. The President is. The liberals are. The OWS folk are. Even Warren Buffet is (although his company has been refusing to pay what the IRS says they owe -- isn't that a bit odd?). And while it may be "good" or "wise" or (more likely) "popular", it doesn't make it "fair" (as in "equitable"). The phrase the President used was "everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." This isn't aimed at either "fair share" or "the same set of rules".

Dan Trabue said...

I'm glad to hear that you're not opposed to gov't, taxes or helping those in need. We're agreed there. I DO worry sometimes that the "small gov't" crowd SEEMS to be an almost anarchic approach to dealing with common needs and that they have an almost magical belief in the "free market" to make all things right.

On this...

I do question whether what is classified as "help" where people end up on the dole for life is "help"

We are also agreed that "assistance" CAN be debilitating or less than helpful. For the most part, I think help IS helpful, but we must always watch for developing dependencies on the help. No one is more aware of this than the social workers and others out helping others on a regular basis. "Charity" should always be only one prong in our efforts to help the least of these.

That's one of the things I like about the Ancient Israel national codes/rules for dealing with poverty. By requiring that farms leave a portion of the field for gleaning by the poor and marginalized, they were taking care (partially) of some of the needs of the people, but still requiring work be done so it's not a debilitating sort of help.

Similarly, with TANF, there are requirements that the recipients be working or in school to better be able to work in order to receive that aid.

I think that idea is a good one, figuring out how best to implement it can be difficult, though.

Also, in ancient Israel, they had rules that kept property/wealth from accumulating too much in too few hands (the Jubilee rules). While a bit dicier, I think this is a sound idea, in general. It isn't saying "You CAN'T be wealthy," but it does place limits on that wealth and growth.

Given the human condition of a tendency towards sin, I think limits are a rational thing to build in. It's just more difficult to figure out how in a Democratic Republic such as ours. But one way to do so is a progressive tax scheme, and other ideas such as inheritance taxes on large amounts of wealth.

What do you think? Do you like the OT models of Jubilee and Sabbath as ways of dealing with the "problems" of wealth and poverty?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

although I pay for it, it is a handout? And although I pay more for it and don't get any more benefit out if it than those who get less, that's fair?

Just using roads/infrastructure as an example, motorists who use the roads don't pay the full cost of roads. Gas taxes go to pay for a bunch of road/infrastructure, but not all of it. Motorists, then, are subsidized by the general taxpaying populace.

For instance, I walk most places I go, and yet "my" taxes are used for paying for "your" roads. Is that fair? Well, we live in a community and everyone contributes to the needs of the community, so yes, it IS fair that everyone contributes to everything, even those things they don't use as much or at all.

Reasonable? I think so. Perfect? No, but what is?

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "Do you like the OT models of Jubilee and Sabbath as ways of dealing with the 'problems' of wealth and poverty?"

I, as you might guess, would generally find the biblical models good ones for solving problems. We don't want to go there, of course, because many of the biblical models can get a bit ... unpopular. (Death penalty for adultery comes to mind.) Besides, wouldn't that be trying to pass laws based on the irrational beliefs of faith? :)

I think TANF was a good step. I think the abuse of the system, however, is not small. And it has been said that when the populace figures out they can vote themselves money, the republic will fall. We have more and more people in this country anxious to vote themselves more and more money on the backs of less and less people (1% now, isn't it?). I think that fall is not far away.

I remember decades ago hearing the story of a small island in the Pacific. The military wanted to use the island for testing. So they offered the inhabitants, a simple farming and fishing community, a sum of money to relocate them while they did the testing and return them when they were done, which they did. Once the inhabitants were returned with freshly built houses and checks from the government, no one wanted to go back to work. An illustration, perhaps. You know, give a man a fish versus teach a man to fish? I'm not entirely sure that throwing money at the problem is the solution. I'm pretty sure that stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't. But my point in the post was that I don't think President Obama's ideas are either fair or consistent.

Dan Trabue said...

I really wish you wouldn't use the term "stealing" when you are speaking of legal taxation. It just isn't the same, brother Stan.

Would you have accused T Jefferson of promoting theft because he wanted to tax primarily the wealthy?

We can agree that there are problems with the system (that will always be the case, no?). Unless you have some research, though, I'd be wary of painting with such a wide brush as to say that any abuse is "not small," because, again, it sounds a bit like condemning the poor.

In ANY system (military, road building, etc), there will be abuses. We should build in safeguards to watch out for that (which, unfortunately, takes money and bureaucracy, right?), but we ought not single out the poor as being the bad guys. Some percentage taking advantage of moneys (in the military, in the police, in charities, in social services, in churches...) does not mean that the system is broke, just that human nature is human nature.

Right?

Re: Jubilee laws, what do you think of that notion? That the argument can be made that we need some systems in place to prevent too much accumulation of wealth? I'm not saying implementing a Jubilee model, I'm talking about the IDEAL: Do you think society needs some system/strategy to watch out/mitigate for the abuses of too much accumulation of wealth in too few hands?

Just curious...

If it's off topic, maybe a post on this some day? I never hear conservative types talking about Sabbath/Jubilee rules in the Bible (OT and NT).

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "I really wish you wouldn't use the term 'stealing' when you are speaking of legal taxation."

Right. As long as we term it "legal taxation" and ignore the dictionary definition of "stealing" as "to take the property of another without permission", it's not the same thing. As long as we assign to the government the right to take whatever they want from whomever they want and call it "legal taxation", it's not stealing. And when they take your money, for instance, to fund a larger military, you won't complain because it's not stealing. You know another interesting definition of "stealing"? "To dishonestly pass off something as one's own." How often do I hear, "That's the government's money"?

As I said, I'm not opposed to taxation. To me it becomes "stealing" when it becomes ridiculous. When a "progressive tax", for instance, gives money back to the lower 50% of the society and then takes 50% of the income of the upper 5% of that society, I'd say that it ceases to be "legal taxation" (just because it is the law) and becomes "stealing". (The example is a fantasy example ... although I suspect there are many engulfed in this stupid "class warfare" these days who would favor it.) So, yes, I would accuse anyone who would promote that kind of taxation of stealing. (That's not a problem for me. I don't consider Thomas Jefferson infallible.)

Dan Trabue: "Unless you have some research, though, I'd be wary of painting with such a wide brush as to say that any abuse is 'not small'."

How about this? When fraud accounts for $2 billion of a $65 billion system, it is "not small". I've heard the anecdotes from grocery clerks who tell of the truly awful things that people buy with those stamps rather than the basic needs for which they are intended. Does this paint everyone who uses such benefits with a broad brush of condemnation? Of course not. Perhaps 1 or 2%? But it's not small.

As for the Jubilee laws, it is not practical in today's society. They are premised on an entire set of laws (such as leaving crops for the poor to pick up) and an entire moral structure including a "no lending for profit" requirement. I do not think that the Jubilee laws were aimed at preventing too much accumulation of wealth in too few hands.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

As long as we term it "legal taxation" and ignore the dictionary definition of "stealing" as "to take the property of another without permission", it's not the same thing.

If you live here, you GIVE permission to be taxed. If you don't like the taxation, you are free to leave. Taxation is not in any sense the same as stealing.

You even said you aren't opposed to taxation, does that mean you approve of stealing? Calling it "stealing" is an unfair way of marginalizing those with whom you disagree - and not very reasonable when you say you don't disagree with it yourself.

Right?

Stan...

it is not practical in today's society. They are premised on an entire set of laws (such as leaving crops for the poor to pick up) and an entire moral structure including a "no lending for profit" requirement.

Well, that's what I'm talking about: The IDEALS behind the Jubilee laws, do you disagree with the ideals (not lending for profit requirement, for instance). Are you saying you disagree with the IDEALS (note: I'm not asking if you think they're practicable, just if you agree with the very ideal being promoted)? Do you disagree with the ban on loaning for interest? With requiring "wealth" - or the means to produce wealth, land, in the OT) to return to a family after a given time period?

Also, if you don't think the Jubilee laws were designed to ensure no one family stayed in poverty too long and no few families accumulated too much wealth, what do you think the purpose of the Jubilee laws were?

Stan said...

Alright. I give up. The fathers of our nation believed that taxation without representation was wrong. That is, "taxation" doesn't, by itself, equate to "fair" or "legal" or "right". Nor did I say that all taxation was stealing. What I said was something like "To me it becomes stealing when it becomes ridiculous." ("Something like" as in "exactly".) But since you chose to ignore that fact, I give up. (I mean, seriously, "If you don't like taxation, you are free to leave"? And go where? Where is there no taxation? And why would you say such a thing when I specifically said the opposite?) Pointless conversation. Thanks.

Dan Trabue said...

I thought it was a very polite and helpful conversation. Sorry if I came across in the wrong way. It seriously was not my intent.

Any chance on your thoughts on Jubilee/Sabbath sometime?

Stan said...

Well, on the one hand it is hard to think of it as "very polite" when I say, "I'm not opposed to taxation" and "To me it becomes 'stealing' when it becomes ridiculous" and you suggest I think all taxation is stealing. Beyond being nonsense, it's not ... polite.

But I didn't stop the conversation because it's not polite. You didn't "come across in the wrong way". You came across as you always do ... on the other side of the fence from me. You're not moving, even toward understanding, and I'm not moving, so it becomes pointless.

And, no, trying to figure out all the stuff on Jubilee when it is not possible or practical in today's world isn't high on my list of things to do. There are too many people on the Internet who are still wrong! (Okay, that last was a joke.)

072591 said...

I did notice something interesting: according to God (in 1 Samuel 8:10-20, but especially 15-17), taxation of 10% was oppression.

Dan Trabue said...

If it's not too far afield to respond to the last claim, 1 Sam 8 reads...

He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

It is not the tenth that is the problem there, but who it goes to help: Those who don't need the help, the king and his officials.

This IS an interesting passage (note that God is warning Israel what will happen if they ask for a king, "like all the other nations have..." - saying, if you get a king, he'll just tax you greatly to prop THE KING up, draft your sons and daughters for his own usage, build a big military...), but let's not extrapolate poorly an incorrect message. Right?

I'm sure the commenter was probably stating this in jest, but just to be clear...

Stan said...

Wait ... so, when God warned them that the king would tax them and draft them and such, He was saying, "This is all a good thing; you should rejoice!"?

Prior to the king, Israel tithed (10%). After the king, Israel tithed (10%) and expected to pay a 10% tax. I don't think God was suggesting to His people, "You'll like this; this will be a good thing. I'm in favor of it." I read the passage to say, "You're asking for it. Watch out! It won't be good."

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

so, when God warned them that the king would tax them and draft them and such, He was saying, "This is all a good thing; you should rejoice!"?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that THE TEXT clearly says that the sin was not the ten percent, but that it was going to the wrong people. That is what the text says. God was warning against the injustice, but it was NOT the ten percent that was the problem, it was where it went.

Right?

Stan said...

Interesting. I didn't even see God suggesting a "sin" was occurring. I saw Him issuing a warning. "You will be taxed (beyond the tithe you already pay). You won't like it."

So, if the tax that the kings brought about for the wrong reason (or person) was a sin and God ordained it, didn't God ordain sin?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

I didn't even see God suggesting a "sin" was occurring. I saw Him issuing a warning. "You will be taxed (beyond the tithe you already pay). You won't like it."

The sin, the wrong being done. God was warning that something bad would happen, that the king would tax and give it to himself. That was the bad that would happen.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I get your point. What do you think the point of the text was? That this would be a good thing that would happen?

Do you think it was the fact that taxation would happen at 10% was what God was warning about?

Stan...

So, if the tax that the kings brought about for the wrong reason (or person) was a sin and God ordained it, didn't God ordain sin?

? God didn't ordain it. God was warning Israel, "THIS is what will happen if you have a king, I'm warning you, you don't want this to happen..."

I'm not clear on your point there, Stan. Do you think God was ordaining this very thing God was warning against?

Stan said...

We're muddling about again, Dan, in terminology that we think is shared but is apparently not. God told them it wouldn't be good. I call that "bad", but I don't call it "sin". Nor do I call taxation "sin" on its face. God was telling them, "This will not be pleasant for you," not "The king will be sinning by doing this."

When God deigned to give them a king despite His warning, God ordained it. Or do you think that God was a victim of His people and, because they demanded it, they ordained it and God was simply forced to acquiesce?

So, we apparently have differing definitions of "sin" and "ordain" (along with all that other stuff we've differed on).