The Coming Fall of the Religious Right?

[MachZer0]

Used on my behalf? I am not eligible for any of the social programs I support. None of it is used to advance my position in society.

I and many in the middle-class who support social programs are fine with paying more taxes ourselves. Supporting social programs leads directly to me having less money, not more. Additionally, you must explain the motivations of people like Warren Buffet, Jon Stewart, and Barack Obama, who all think the richest of the rich (i.e. - themselves) should pay more in taxes. Clearly they're covetous, wanting for themselves and their peers to pay more tax!

Being used "on your behalf" does not mean being used on you, but rather for you as a representative

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, once money has been taxed, it no longer belongs to the person from whom it was taxed. That's the whole point.

That would be the whole pont of coveteousness. Taking another's property for your own, or in this case to be able to give it to others.

 

[citizenthom]

I don't get the argument that people who support social programs are greedy. I mostly don't get it because I'm a tax-payer who isn't eligible for any of the social programs I support. What's my motive?

In my experience people who support social programs of any kind fall into four categories:

1. The recipients of the benefits or benefits-to-be

2. The technocrats who administer the program and therefore benefit vicariously

3. Wealthy people who have a guilty conscience but are unwilling to give directly, and

4. Others who are jealous of the wealthy and would just as soon see their wealth go to someone else as to themselves.

It's all some form of greed/jealousy. It just takes different forms.

If it was really a humanitarian motive, people wouldn't get so mad when we said "no": they'd just find another way to administer the program without government involvement, like private charities do.

 

[hollyda]

Being used "on your behalf" does not mean being used on you, but rather for you

Could you explain how these social programs are being used for DeathMagus if he does not benefit from them based on ineligibility?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Other people's money, to be specific

... And their own. You forgot about that.

 

[MachZer0]

... And their own. You forgot about that.

But moreso from others

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In my experience people who support social programs of any kind fall into four categories:

1. The recipients of the benefits or benefits-to-be

2. The technocrats who administer the program and therefore benefit vicariously

3. Wealthy people who have a guilty conscience but are unwilling to give directly, and

4. Others who are jealous of the wealthy and would just as soon see their wealth go to someone else as to themselves.

It's all some form of greed/jealousy. It just takes different forms..

Well, then it should be unproblematic for you. After-all, Capitalism makes a virtue out of greed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But moreso from others

And themselves. You always forget to include that.

 

[MachZer0]

Could you explain how these social programs are being used for DeathMagus if he does not benefit from them based on ineligibility?

Ted Kennedy provided us the perfect example. As a Catholic, he believed he needed to earn his way to Heaven. To do so, he decided the best way was to use other people's money to help the poor. So he pushed legislation to take other people's money for his own benefit in order to earn his way into Heaven. As with many liberals, they can satisfy their desire to help the poor by coveting, confiscating, then distributing other people's money

 

[DeathMagus]

Being used "on your behalf" does not mean being used on you, but rather for you as a representative

You've just described all taxes used for anything and everything. All taxes are used "on my behalf as a representative". Are all taxes covetous?

That would be the whole pont of coveteousness. Taking another's property for your own, or in this case to be able to give it to others.

Once again - you're describing all taxation everywhere. It's all covetous, then?

In my experience people who support social programs of any kind fall into four categories:

1. The recipients of the benefits or benefits-to-be

2. The technocrats who administer the program and therefore benefit vicariously

3. Wealthy people who have a guilty conscience but are unwilling to give directly, and

4. Others who are jealous of the wealthy and would just as soon see their wealth go to someone else as to themselves.

It's all some form of greed/jealousy. It just takes different forms.

If it was really a humanitarian motive, people wouldn't get so mad when we said "no": they'd just find another way to administer the program without government involvement, like private charities do.

It's hardly surprising that you don't support social programs, if those are the only four motives you see. I would consider the possibility that your experience has been deficient.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Could you explain how these social programs are being used for DeathMagus if he does not benefit from them based on ineligibility?

As Mach said, he benefits by being a representative. Granted, he receives no money or assistance in any form, receives no additional vacation days from his employer, still has to wait in line at the grocery store like everyone else, and obey all traffic laws. However, he still benefits by being a representative. Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ted Kennedy provided us the perfect example. As a Catholic, he believed he needed to earn his way to Heaven. To do so, he decided the best way was to use other people's money to help the poor. So he pushed legislation to take other people's money for his own benefit in order to earn his way into Heaven. As with many liberals, they can satisfy their desire to help the poor by coveting, confiscating, then distributing other people's money

1. As before, this does not fall under the definition of covetousness.
2. It's not just 'other people's money' that is being 'confiscated'. It's also their own. How can they covet their own money?

 

[MachZer0]

And themselves. You always forget to include that.

Just for the record, they can't desire money moreso from others and themselves at the same time.

 

[hollyda]

Ted Kennedy provided us the perfect example. As a Catholic, he believed he needed to earn his way to Heaven. To do so, he decided the best way was to use other people's money to help the poor. So he pushed legislation to take other people's money for his own benefit in order to earn his way into Heaven. As with many liberals, they can satisfy their desire to help the poor by coveting, confiscating, then distributing other people's money

Okay...following this logic, I suppose the atheists (as DeathMagus' icon would indicate) who want to help the poor do it for...well, not to get into Heaven. Not to gain anything out of it for themselves...for what? Just 'cause? To stick it to the rich?

In any regard, I'd like to see some evidence of what you assert I (as a liberal in favor of social programs, and someone who would not personally benefit from it in any way) believe and the reasons for it.

 

[Fantine]

Without programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, our nation would have had several more "great depressions" than it did.

What has protected us from prolonged and protracted downturns in the past 80 years (until now) has been an economic system which has maintained and supported the middle class when they've hit bumps in the road, maintaining demand for goods and services and keeping businesses healthy.

What is hurting our economy now is the gradual decline of the middle class, hurt by globalization and corporate greed which has caused businesses to ship jobs overseas.

Most economists believe that the slated budget cuts will have a far greater negative effect on employment than ending the Bush tax cuts will.

For example, Time Magazine reported that 45% of the country's medical costs are paid for by the federal government....this means that budget cuts to Medicare will raise the unemployment rate far more than ending Bush tax cuts will.

 

[MachZer0]

1. As before, this does not fall under the definition of covetousness.
2. It's not just 'other people's money' that is being 'confiscated'. It's also their own. How can they covet their own money?

It's coveteousness because they want some others to not only pay more, but they want them to pay at a higher percentage rate. Sort of a double whammy.

 

[Marek]

In my experience people who support social programs of any kind fall into four categories:

1. The recipients of the benefits or benefits-to-be

2. The technocrats who administer the program and therefore benefit vicariously

3. Wealthy people who have a guilty conscience but are unwilling to give directly, and

4. Others who are jealous of the wealthy and would just as soon see their wealth go to someone else as to themselves.

It's all some form of greed/jealousy. It just takes different forms.

You're missing the largest category:

Individuals that believe certain social programs are necessary to improve society as a whole.

 

[DeathMagus]

It's coveteousness because they want some others to not only pay more, but they want them to pay at a higher percentage rate. Sort of a double whammy.

Again, you're ignoring Warren Buffet, Jon Stewart, Barack Obama, and the like. Who'll be paying more than them?

 

[hollyda]

As Mach said, he benefits by being a representative. Granted, he receives no money or assistance in any form, receives no additional vacation days from his employer, still has to wait in line at the grocery store like everyone else, and obey all traffic laws. However, he still benefits by being a representative. Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

Clear as mud!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's coveteousness because they want some others to not only pay more, but they want them to pay at a higher percentage rate. Sort of a double whammy.

But, and this is crucial, they acknowledge that if they themselves had a greater income that they too would pay more, or to use your words, have more 'confiscated' from them. So I once again ask... how is it possible for someone to covet their own wealth and their own possible future wealth?