1OldGeezer

Richard,
With the ENORMOUS amount you give each month, maybe the government can cut back on supporting those who simply don't want to work and lower Marke and my taxes a little. (You can voluntarily make up the difference).
It doesn't sound to me like Marke wants to withdraw from society at all, he simply expects others to be as self reliant as they can be and to take responsibility for their own well being in life. Easy welfare and free stuff takes away that incentive and the personal satisfaction and dignity of providing for oneself.
I didn't read marke's comment as blaming those people entirely, but rather he put blame on those self serving politicians and enablers (perhaps like yourself) who offer and justify getting "free stuff" paid for by taxes on persons like marke who are trying to support themselves and to get ahead a little. Sad part is that so much of Marke's taxes isn't really needed but just goes to buy v**es for politicians and to expand the power of government so the corruption of the population can continue.
Seems Marke believes as I do, in equal opportunity, and reasonable, voluntary, charity; rather than equal stuff whether you work or not.
1oldgeezeer

Richard94611

Yes, 1OldGeezer, I have heard of and do know the difference. The problem with approaching the problem this way is that ALL; societies (cultures) have a certain amount of forced giving, like it or not. If you are a member of society -- any society -- there are rules, and these include being required to give. Societies cannot and do not exist under the paradigm you are suggesting.

1OldGeezer

Richard,
"Certain amount of giving" (redistribution) can be tolerated by a society, but, to the extreme, it is destructive to the society. It destroys the societies incentives to produce for the common good. TOO MUCH IS TOO MUCH, Know what TEA stand for? We are past that point !
1oldgeezer

Richard94611

Geezer, I think quite possibly your feelings about what is tolerable and what is not differ from the way most people in this society believe. There are some societies that can only survive when work for the common good is much greater than this one, and they haven't fallen apart. There are some societies where the amount produced is way beyond what is necessary for survival, yet the people in those societies not only tolerate this buy want this. The spectrum of human behavior and economic practices may be much greater than you know.

1OldGeezer

Richard,
First, I would say that you don't really know that "most" people in this society believe in forced "sharing", if you want to call wealth redistribution by the government "sharing".
I happen to believe that most people do believe in sharing, but with about 80% of the people being christian, they believe that it is important that we share but that it is an individual VOLUNTARY responsibility, actually the voluntary part is what warrants a path to heaven according to the Bible.
The government having the power to decide what each one us needs and receives diminishes/destroys individual freedom.
With this program, and this administration we are almost to the point of the government gaining the power to tell each of us what we should have and how much we should give up to the "common good" (after their extraction of a commission, of course).
You cannot have a free society without free individuals.
No nation thrives without free individuals.
How far do you want to go..Are we about there?
1oldgeezer

Richard94611

I will concede one point here already -- your post is at least coherent and expresses a coherent point of view. I wonder about the 80% being Christian figure. I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Your idea of "free individuals" would probably (a guess) turn out to be more like anarchy. I think we have a fundamental disagreement, but so what ?

1OldGeezer

Richard,
Good, I can see one point where we are probably pretty far apart, that is when I express a wish for a society with "free" individuals, I don't mean a society where anything goes, any civilized society has the right to make and enforce reasonable laws and regulations to protect the society, and I think any good society is a moral, responsible society where individuals voluntarily work for the common good. I may have more faith in the bulk of the U.S. population than you do. I believe the VAST majority of the United States population are good people capable of making their own judgements about what is best for the society and the country.
Primarily, my free society would include the basic principle that people should be free to choose what they want to buy and how much they want to pay for it. The governments responsibility in business would be to assure that there is competition in the market place, probably limited to only seeing that there is no monopoly in the business sector.
Next, I don't think that you fully understand the extent of government control that the new Health Insurance law embodies.
For instance, why must this law affect EVERYONE's health insurance if the primary purpose was to provide health care to the 15% who supposedly did not have it because they could not afford it? If this law were truly only about health care for the needy, it would not have been written to control everyone, it would have addressed the actual problem instead. It will not improve health care, but actually will extend the governments control over the health insurance and health care industry, along with taking away your right to choose, and, by precedent flow over to all other facets of your life.

The law as written authorizes many groups that can write "regulations" that of course have the effect of law, all without review or approval of our elected legislature. We have unelected bureaucrats writing "laws". One group of bureaucrats even has the authority/responsibility of approving/disapproving medical treatment to individuals they know only on paper. (Think of the political advantage there!)
Is this where you want to go? It is, without a doubt, the road to Socialism.
1oldgeezer