Does America Need Ayn Rand or Jesus
This is what the Fox columist says:
Given her positive teachings, Rand must reject what is usually taken to be the core of Jesus’ moral teachings, the Sermon on the Mount. But before you dismiss this as unthinkable, ask yourself the following question. Did Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers not reject the Sermon’s advice in creating America?I, for one, agree with the columnist that the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Ayn Rand are incompatible. I'm not yet sure about the "Founding Fathers".But I take my guidance from Jesus, not Ayn Rand. Can we achieve some clarity on this important question?
I think there is a confusion, that because conservatives reject big government solutions and the welfare state, that this somehow implies a lack of compassion for fellow man. I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to “love our neighbors as ourselves”, but I believe when done by government it doesn’t work and isn't moral. Of course Jesus teaches us to be compassionate on an individual level, but nothing he taught do I interpret as a societal demand that he wants forced upon by a large governmental body. I think when big government tries to be “compassionate” it is almost always counterproductive, and here is a quick article to summarize 10 ways liberals policies hard societys’ moral character.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is point 10 of 10, I think it is a good summary of the difference:
The leftist weltanschauung sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=1e3d60a0-3a77-443c-b0f2-6e270e07dca6&url=ten_ways_progressive_policies_harm_societys_moral_character
ps. I still don't know how to hyper-text, so apologize for you having to cut and past articles that I post.
I agree there is confusion. So who is confused? Ayn Rand who says selfishness is a virtue? Jesus who says the essence of sin is selfishness? "Liberal" Christians who believe the Sermon on the Mount Mount is relevant today? The Fox News columnist who considers the Sermon on the Mount irrelevant today? Dennis Prager who sets up straw men and then demolishes them?
ReplyDeleteI read you to say you disagree with the Fox columnist (and me) who says the teachings of Jesus are incompatible with the teaching of Ayn Rand. You are saying the Fox columnist (and I) are confused.
If so, a debate on what we believe the Bible teaches may be helpful. I would be interested in knowing by what moral standard governments are to be judged, if not that of God as expressed through Jesus (or if you prefer Leviticus). If I hear correctly, you are rejecting both those standards.
I don't understand your use of the word "force". Surely a government needs to represent the wishes of the majority. If that majority wants the government to develop compassionate policies, a democratic government needs to move in that direction. Do you call that "force?"
As a counter point to Prager, you may wish to consider http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/. (I know I've sent you there before, so that may be a waste of time.)
1. What are some quotes that show Ayn Rand believes selfishness is an individual virtue? My assumption (perhaps flawed, as I am no Ayn Rand expert) is that she is simply saying a society of people pursuing their own economic interests (as opposed to people only working for the “common good” as in a communist system) produce an economic system that works for all. If Ayn Rand believes individual selfishness is good, of course most conservatives wouldn’t agree.
ReplyDelete2. We know statistically, conservatives are far more religious (particularly evangelicals that take the Bible more literal) than liberals, so not sure why you would imply that only liberal christians believe the Sermon on the Mount is relevant today. Do you believe conservative Christians are less versed in the Bible than liberal Christians?
3. I think Dennis Prager does a pretty good job showing how liberal policies create an inferior moral society. Do you disagree with all 10 points, and if so why?
4. With regards to force, my point is that giving money involuntary to the government through taxes to help the poor is no virtue. Voluntarily giving money to help the less fortunate is a virtue. With 50% of America not paying taxes, they are voting in liberal policies with no monetary sacrifice of their own.
1. Ayn Rand wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness". I have it on my bookshelf. I read it too many years ago to remember just what she said, but I assume it says what the title indicates. I had assumed you [and the Fox News columnist] were advocating her philosophy. If that is not the case we can drop this part of the conversation.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the initial question you are saying America needs Jesus, even if that means throwing Ayan Rand overboard.
2. I have no opinion as to who is more versed in the Bible, Liberal or Conservative Christians. I had assumed that the Fox News commentator [who does not believe the Sermon on the Mount is relevant in America today] spoke for Fox News and most Conservatives in America today. You seem to be saying that is not the case. Then let's drop that one.
You agree with me that the Sermon on the Mount takes precedence over other [quasi] moral codes.
3. Yes I do believe Dennis sets up a whole bunch of straw men whom he then decimates masterfully. I hope to have time to walk through his piece and show you why I beleive that, but that will need to be next week at the earliest. I am preaching a sermon on Sunday I need to work on.
I still want to know what moral standard you apply to government. I think it needs to be the Jesus one. I do not think what is moral for a person is immoral for government. I can think of policies that reflect compassion, and policies that don't. You may disagree with me as to whether they do or not reflect compassion, and that becomes the center of a meaningful debate. To evaluate a government on the basis of its size without referencing what it spends its money on or how it collects it, seems to be a debate without a moral mooring to me.
Seems to me this is a good case for christians staying out of government. Christianity is best practiced on an individual basis and does not work when practiced by governments so render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and get out of his way.
ReplyDelete"Liberal elites venerate a Cuban tyranny."
ReplyDelete"Right wing thinkers venerate Anders Behring Breivik and Timothy McVeigh."
Is there a difference in logic between the two statements? I can't see any.
If those statements were equally true, then no there would be little difference. However the reality is much different. Are their right wing thinkers that admire Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh? Not to my knowlege.
ReplyDeleteYet, the liberal-elite admire castro. I could write an entire page full of examples. Dozens of famous liberals (Robert Redford, Spike Lee, Sidney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Shirley MacLaine, Alanis Morissette, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kevin Costner have gone to visit Castro). They almost always come away very positive. Take Jack Nicholson about Castro "He is a genious, we spoke about everything" or Namomi Cambell "A source of inspiration to the world" . We have Michael Moore doing a domentary about the great health care system there. You have Barbara Walters saying "For Castro, freedom starts with education/ And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth."
If conservative elites like Tom Selleck or Glenn Beck start visiting Anders Breivik and come back glowing, then you may have a point.
I only know a few of the people you list, and I did not take the time to google for them. The ones I know are movie stars. If "liberal elites" equals "movie stars", well . . . I'm not sure just what to say. That's a new one on me. I thought they were just rich movie stars.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember stories of Rumsfeld being chummy with Saddam Hussein and George Bush entertaining the Saudi Royals at his ranch. These would not even be the best examples of close ties between conservative elites and right wing despots, but they come to mind right now.
There is no need to venerate Castro to acknowledge the truth of what Barbara Walters says (If you disagree with Barbara Walters, I would really like to know on what basis). Similarly, an acknowledgement that Cuba has the best health care outside the G20 does not require a veneration of Castro.
I hear implied in Prager's statement that anyone on "THE LEFT" venerates Castro (or Lenin or Stalin or Mao). For one thing, I now (thanks Karl) have no idea who is on "THE LEFT" in Prager's world view, and secondly, assuming there is a continuum from RIGHT to LEFT, how far would one need to be to the left of Prager to be considered delusionally and dangerously communist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a better way of saying the above, is that if I had realized that Prager is talking about rich Hollywood movie stars when he refers to "morally confused liberal elite" I would not have posted what I did. In that case, I think I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteSure, many are movie stars, but what the common thread of them is they are all outspoken liberals. I am curious though why you added the adjective "rich" when you referred to movie stars. Does this support the view that liberals in general divide the world between rich and poor, while conservatives divide it between good and evil?
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that what Barbara Walters and Michael Moore say about Castro/Cuba are accurate in some ways. However, stressing the good of Castro and Cuba, would be akin to someone saying "Hitler built great roads and provided health care for his people." That is true, but that is not the essence of who he was. I don't recall Michael Moore, Castro, or the others listed, stating many negatives about Castro.
Clearly Prager is generalizing about the left, but I believe he is generally accurate.
You have not answered my question.
ReplyDeleteYou know, of course, that many socialists, like Ralph Nader and the NDP in Canada, would consider liberals and the Democratic Party to be on the political right.
Which question is that?
ReplyDeleteMy most recent: Who is "on the left" in Pager's Weltanschauung?
ReplyDeleteAnother question I had asked earlier in this chain: What is an appropriate moral standard to apply to a Government or a [potential] government policy.
Not sure how I can quickly define the left in his definition. My understanding would be the Prager would say that the Left are those that believe in big government solutions to most economic problems, and ultimately value equality over equal opportunity. On values and deciding social issues, the Left decides from the “heart” what is good, and less concerned about traditions (Biblical or otherwise). That is why for example they “feel” for the gay person and therefore want same-sex marriage, but they don’t think through the long term consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think the appropriate moral standard to apply to a government is does it strive for equal OPPORTUNITY for its citizens. I believe helping those that are struggling are best left to churches and other charities.
I am not a scholar of the Left, and so would never presume to speak for the Left. I only speak of my perception.
ReplyDeleteI would surprised if you could find a leftist who would self define that way. That's what I mean when I say that Prager sets up straw men to demolish. I, for one, don't think that approach furthers meaningful debate.
For example Medicare. I believe Prager has labelled this a leftist policy. My perception is that the proponents of Medicare are saying that all citizens, regardless of wealth, regardless of stupid decisions made by parents, should have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS health care services. Equality with respect to health care would mean something totally absurd, such as nursing care for everyone, whether they are sick or not. I really cannot envision a health care policy that would strive for equality.
With respect to size of government, Harper has increased the size of government during his tenure. Paul Martin shrank the federal government. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/07/harper-fattens-federal-bureaucracy/
I feel somewhat inadequate to comment on the situation south of the border, except to say that global empire building is very consistent with a "big government solution." Had Obama been faithful to the image he painted of himself while campaigning, the military would be significantly smaller now than it is, and the size of government would be smaller. While in office, Obama has moved significantly to the right.
I maintain that the Prager defines the left accurately, even if many on the left don’t see themselves that way. I believe many on the left in particular are not self-aware. The example you give is Medicare as something that doesn’t fit the left/right bucket. I think it fits in perfectly and is a classic liberal program pushing equal results (not equal opportunity). A true conservative would say that people need to be responsible for their own lives, and if you live in a country that gives you equal opportunity for “life, liberity, and pursuit of happiness” you need to save money for your own medical insurance. The Left approach, is to say that regardless how much you work or save, you should receive the same results - Medicare. The left approach may appeal to the heart, but unfortunately as we now see increasingly throughout the world, these government redistribution schemes do not work over the long term and are now bankrupting the system.
ReplyDeleteObama has not done what he has said with respect to the military or shrinking down Guantanamo that is true. However, outside of that, he has shown himself exactly as he campaigned – a far left liberal. He has massively increased the size of government as he aluded to, to the point that rating agencies in the next few weeks will likely downgrade the US debt - unthinkable even 4 years ago. As far as Harper (or frankly even Bush) increasing the size of government as well (albeit at a vastly slower pace than Obama) I would say they are going against their principals.
You are, of course entitled to your opinion about the Left.
ReplyDeleteAbout the Right, however, what you say makes no sense to me. Label me stupid or naive if you like. The world I see (do you see something I don't see?) does not give equal opportunity to everyone -- for a whole bunch of reasons:
intelligence, inheritance, health, poor parenting, bad marriage, and the list goes on.
Do you see a different world than I do?
In principle I agree that people need to be responsible for their own lives. But that does not mean to me, that everyone starts off with the same opportunities at birth.
So what would be an example of an enlightened policy that would address the lack of equal opportunity within a nation.
Life is unfair, we all know that. Clearly some people have to work harder to a achieve a similar task as another. But the Left tends to put the onus on your success on society and the Right puts it in on the individual and family. The right merely wants a playing field that is equal, not a large government infrastructure to force equal results.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, without a massive entitlement program, people have the opportunity to achieve their own success. However, as highlighted in the Prager article, giving people things for free (what the left does) creates less opportunity for them as they become “entitled” and no longer work for themselves. Just as it is unwise to feed wild animals as we make them dependent and less able to hunt for themselves, in similar fashion we do that to people with generous social programs. Once people become used to generous social programs and understand that there is a safety hamoc, people limit their opportunities and work less hard. If Oma and Opa arrived in Canada in 2011, it is unclear to me they would have raised as successful a group of independent children, as it would have been much easier to live off government handouts.
Additionally, in attempt to fund these programs, the government levies high taxes. This also limits opportunity, and keeps those that are already on top as almost a permanent ruling class because it is too hard to reach their financial status with high taxes (unlike the US which traditionally has seen the most movement between classes out of any country in the world). Therefore, some policies to enable equal opportunity are low taxes (to enable those that want to achieve financial success to achieve it). Additionally, as I have mentioned, getting rid of the teacher’s union and allow children to go to the school of their choice (rather than be forced to go to the school of the region in which you live) does a lot to prevent a permanent underclass.
Can you explain the link between small government and an equal playing field? Taken to its extreme, (and I know you are not advocating that) all power is with the powerful.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, an enlightened government needs move carefully between two extremes. On the one hand it needs to protect property rights. We all need to be protected from thieves, murderers and muggers. But who makes the rules surrounding property rights? Those in power. Always. In many parts of the world, and often in the course of history, the powerful and the government were indistinguishable. That would be a dictatorship or oligarchy. The beauty of a democracy is that it seems we have found a way for people to use the government to temper the power of the powerful the powerful.
The danger I see, is that as we limit the scope of government, and as we limit the ability of government to collect taxes, we are not thereby giving power to the people. We are in fact giving more power to the ruling elite, who are not accountable to anyone. No?
I agree that developing a sense of entitlement can be bad for people. You seem to imply that this danger exist for poor people, but not for wealthy people.
My sense is that the wealthy feel they are entitled to everything they can get their hands on. Won't you say that getting an inter-generational wealth transfer beyond a certain amount, is getting something for free? Then a logical extension of your argument would be that there should be a limit to the wealth that may be transferred between generations?
What would you say is the essence of lobbying: is it to educate decision makers, or is it to convince legislators that "I am entitled to a larger piece of the pie?" Who is doing most of the lobbying?
I am prepared to accept your assertion that there is great mobility between the classes in the US. You link it to taxes. I wonder how one would establish causal connection? I suspect it has much more to do with the new world mentality.
I think a small government and equal opportunity are highly linked. If you have high taxes and lots of red tape, you basically freeze everyone to their current conditions keeping the rich and poor in their respective situations. Those countries with low taxes and regulations see the most movement between classes, with high regulations and taxes keep the wealthy on top. One could argue that an extreme system like communism is also one of equal opportunity, the opportunity is just miserable. However, those systems always have a ruling class which most have no opportunity to be a part of.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be far more afraid of business power than governmental power, and I am the opposite. With businesses, one can make a choice whether to support them or not and they don’t have the power to incarcerate. So I that way I see business as very accountable, and why you see businesses fail all the time. Sure you can vote in different politicians, but the government is still a monopoly. I look to a tyranny like Stalin and compare that with unfettered capitalism in the late 19th century in the US as two extremes, and the respective dangers of each do not even compare. I certainly struggle when I look today, to see business as a larger net threat to people’s freedom to pursue their life than I do the government, though I have to admit I am not sure I can summarize this threat well.
I certainly did not mean to imply entitlements are bad simply for poor, it is bad period.
I have to admit, the I believe I am more convinced now of the Prager top 10 list than I was 10 days ago. While I do not consider you a “liberal elite” would it be fair that you divide the world’s great battle between rich and poor as the quote noted originally? The reason I say is even when I showed how many liberal elites admire Castro, you threw in the adjective “rich” to somehow say that is the common thread that caused them to admire Castro.
Paragraph 1: I totally agree that regulation can be a huge obstacle to development and business. I have experienced some of that in Ethiopia, and you may have experienced it in some of the countries you have visited. I totally agree with you that one reason for the prosperity of the US is its business friendly economy. However, I think one needs to distinguish between high taxes and red tape. I see no correlation. My reference http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings Furthermore, I distinguish greatly between different kinds of taxes. I find the approach of the current Right, which simply says reduce taxes, without addressing the kind of tax as being either simple minded or lazy. This is unfortunate.
ReplyDeleteP 2: It was Eisenhower who first warned of the Military Industrial Complex. If you agree with him how can that power be controlled, other than by a democratic government? Currently the US [and Canadian] government is doing a very poor job of that, but what other alternative, what other hope is there? I suspect tobacco companies have been examined more closely in recent years than any other industry. It has been shown how, during the past two generations, tobacco companies have targeted children, suppressed scientific research and lied about how deadly and addictive cigarettes are. Do you believe the tobacco industry and the companies of the tobacco industry are unique in possessing those traits. So one tobacco company fails. But another one steps in. Is there any reason that this results in more accountability? What defeats democracy in the US today is that lobbyists with the massive wealth at their disposal, determine who is elected, and what policies they support.
P 3: I contend that when the poor are driven by a sense of entitlement, they are the ones that suffer most in the end. The entitlement that drives the rich is destroying the country.
P. 4: Amusing! Both the "liberal elite" and your spin on it. I don't know about the "liberal elite" because I really don't know who they are, but I do find it amusing that rich Hollywood actors would be enthralled by Castro (I mean, this was news to me). That Catholic priests and others working directly with the poor would "admire" (your word) Castro, makes some sense to me. That a rich Hollywood actor, living in Beverly Hills would "admire" him, makes no sense to me at all. So if Oscar Romero were to write about Castro (I don't know if he has) I would read that with interest. Why would I read what Robert Redford says about Castro?
A recent article in "The Canadian Mennonite" echos my thoughts well. http://www.canadianmennonite.org/articles/just-trying-help Note that the words RIGHT and LEFT do not appear in the article.
Personally I am very uncomfortable dealing with people who are much poorer than I am. I find myself much more comfortable in a place where the wealth is well distributed, not as a result of charity (with giver and recipient), but as a result of a just society. And then I hear of company CEOs who decide its OK to pay themselves millions of dollars, while they decide that others, essential to the running of their company need to get by on the minimum wage. And I hear you saying that's OK. That's neither virtuous nor un-virtuous. If he then turns around and gives a significant portion of his millions to "the Poor", that is a virtuous act. Or am I hearing you wrong?
P1: The left wants to raise taxes, the right wants to reduce. Both sides tend to be too simplistic by not specifying which taxes, or realizing that taxes have an elasticity to them, meaning simply raising them won’t always take in more money.
ReplyDeleteP2. We all should take more personal responsibility. Anyone who ever thought smoking was good for you because a camel looked cool smoking on a commercial the way the Tabacco companies portrayed is a bit of an idiot. Yes, I want truth in advertising, but our daily lives are filled with distortions from the media and educators, business is hardly unique.
P3 I believe entitlements by both rich and poor destroy the country. I don’t know how you can say only the rich entitlements destroy the country. If you are referring to big Wall Street bailouts then I wouldn’t disagree with you that those are very harmful. However, given it is the left that argues for bigger government , they want larger entitlements in general by definition. As we can see, this philosophy is destroying virtually every western country with the weight of entitlements, as it is the right that argues for smaller government.
P4. My point is the media and universities are dominated by liberal-elite opinions. Therefore, Hollywood stars are nothing I care about, but they have more influence on society given their wider audience than I do and hence the term elite. It is the liberal elite in that sense, and also many college professors that admire dictators like Castro which can influence a society. It was the liberal elite (media and educators) in the 1940s that thought Stalin was a pretty good guy, I believe because he sought in their view an egalitarian society. The blue collar factory workers had enough sense to realize the evils of communism.
P5. I don’t completely disagree with the article in the Canadian Mennonite. I fear it will take us on a tangent if I respond at this time in detail.
P6. I think many people see companies having a fixed pie of money. With that fixed amount of money, the CEO decides how to divide the money through salaries and benefits to firm. This view also sees employees as victims that have to accept any amount given to them by the CEO. With that view, I would also be angry at CEOs’ greed. The reality is boards and shareholders decide CEO pay, and a good CEO can greatly expand the growth and profitability of a firm, much more impact-fully than a good factory worker. The CEO’s decisions more directly impact the overall sales of the firm if they can offer products society desires. The amount the company takes in is therefore not a fixed pie of dollars, as a good CEO expands that pie assuming he provides products society desires. If the pie expands, and the CEO foolishly decides to only enrich himself, the firm will face low morale and high turnover and ultimately not succeed. At our firm, we had a terrible 2008, and under all our contracts we should have all been paid $0. However, the CEO of the firm sold a bunch of his personal assets and paid everybody well beyond what was required. He partly did this because he is an ethical man, but also because good people would have left had he not been generous.
P1: I hear the Right saying let's reduce taxes (primary agenda) and cut benefits to the poor (secondary agenda). I hear the Left saying let's do what we can to give dignity to the poor (primary agenda). If that results in a tax increase, so be it (but not part of the agenda). Stephen Harper once said "All taxes are bad." I disagree. Some taxes are good. Basically I am against prohibition -- alcohol, drugs, smoking, pollution, etc. etc. etc. It does not work! But I am in favour of taxes that discourage undesirable behavior. I have not heard a leftist leader say "All taxes are good." Maybe I have not listened carefully enough.
ReplyDeleteP2 Both business and government are part of this fallen world, and as such all are tempted towards corruption. Within government it is simply the lust for power, but in the US this is tempered by the constitutional limit to the length of term. Business leaders experience the same lust for power, but frequently their lust for profit also motivates them towards corruption. One example: the US government lied to its people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Fundamentally I believe the motivation for that was lust for power (I could be wrong). On the other hand, it is in Blackwater's financial interest to be ineffective and to inflate security risks. Peace would be disastrous to Blackwater. This company must avoid peace at all costs. This is the extreme example, but in general I believe there is substantial incentive for many large corporations to act against "the people's" interest.
P3. Wall street, yes. What about agricultural subsidies, what about auto industry bailouts, what about allowing industrial developments without factoring in social costs such as availability of scarce resources on the long run, health, etc.
P4. I can't reference something to say you are wrong, my opinion though is that your view of history is wrong. I may tell you some Ethiopia stories some time.
P5. Right
P6. Of course it goes without saying that some people in a company exert greater influence on the ability of a company to earn money than others. I am talking about something else. You would agree, I think, that the the disparity in income between the top income earners and the bottom income earners within the same company have increased substantially in recent years. Why? I think this because of a growing culture of entitlement among the business elite. In my view the rise of this culture is not in the interest of anyone, including the people who take (what a bland word) their million dollar salaries. Your CEO obviously is a good man, but he was also concerned about the loss of some people it would be hard to replace. Not all employees in a company are hard to replace. Some, in fact are very easy to replace. That does not make them any less human, or any less deserving of a "fair" share of the pie.
There is a substantial difference between charity and justice. I think our scriptures call for both.
While I enjoy our discussions, I am a little concerned that I may not be able to maintain work and 6 discussions at once. I think we don’t disagree so much with points P2-P5, other than to say in particular on P3, the only one boldly calling for cuts to all of those things (auto bailouts, agricultural subsidies, wall-street bailouts) are the tea-party (the right) of the spectrum. The left continues to push for more government spending, believing that it is the salvation to this miserable economy – when in fact it is the CAUSE of this economy.
ReplyDeleteSo lets go to P1. Do you really believe that the Right wants to simply reduce taxes and cut benefits to the poor as their two primary agendas? If you do, I see this as a very sad commentary on the state of our media, that an intelligent thoughtful guy as yourself, believes that is the goal of the Right. The Right does want a smaller government and cutting entitlements, but I am unaware of anyone on the Right suggesting targeting the poor. In fact it was exactly the ones most on the right that were most vocal about no financial bailouts, no money for GM, and brining government wages and pensions more in-line with the private sector (government workers in the US get paid roughly 30% more than the private sector) for example (I could go on for pages if you would like).
As far as the Left saying they want dignity for the poor primarily, I don’t disagree that many on the Left have good intentions (just like many on the Right have good intentions). But based on the evidence, and at the heart of the Prager article that started this round of debates, is the point that the Leftist policies don’t provide dignity to the poor – but rather the opposite – it diminishes the poor (along with others that take government handouts including many rich people). It turns everything into entitlement, stunts maturity, corrupts the family, and fosters corruption (see article for refresh).
I've been surprised for some time that you have the time to comment as you do. For me it takes time, and for us retired fogees making that time can be a little easier than people maintaining a job. To slow things down a little, I will reply in a day or two.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Karl, we can't blame the media for this one. It's you and me. Maybe I'm just not a good listener. By far my greatest source of information as to what the Right believes is you. And here is what I'm hearing:
ReplyDelete1) We have a deficit/debt problem. I agree.
2) Increasing taxes is ineffective and counter-productive.
3) There is only one reasonable remedy. Reduce spending.
4) It may be that our society is full of various interest groups pursuing entitlement agendas, but only entitlement that is relevant to the debt problem is that of the working class and/or poor people.
5) There is a bonus in cutting benefits to the poor. Of course it is good for the budget, but on the long run they will be better off. There will be a better business climate, but also because fewer benefits to the poor will give them more dignity, etc.
6) If we want good government, the most critical thing we need to do is to reduce its size. If we do that, everything else will fall into place quite easily.
If this is not an accurate summary of what the Right believes (and what you've have been saying), please correct.
You have it partially correct. Yes, although I believe you have misinterpreted numbers 4 and 5 in particular. As I have stated many times, the tea party/right have been the ones vocal about cutting government – particularly on the wealthy (please re-read second paragraph of my last posting).
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, while the media always points to the sad stories of implications of governments “cutting back” (which in reality almost always means government is merely not growing enough as cut backs are defined as a reduction in the growth rate) they rarely ask – what does higher spending mean for a nation. As we see today in the markets, destructively large governments are now causing a big decline in the markets as a result of the S&P credit rating downgrade. They downgraded because the governments are not showing a desire to tackle the deficit. The right has been calling for a balanced budget for years. The left (if we define the left as the Democrats and Obama which I think is true) have not proposed a budget in 3 years! This ratings downgrade will cause a reduction in employment, which will disproportionately hit the poor. Another example of unintended consequences of big government.