Biden's Proposals Aim to Give Sturdier Support to the Middle Class

[Hammster]

Perhaps it is, but there is nothing about Biden's plan that seeks to ensure that you (or anyone else) live up to that standard (or any other).

What is your understanding of the plan?

 

[Larniavc]

I hope everyone enjoys the "free" lunch because those who can afford it the least will be paying the bill for years to come. Taxing the rich and corporations is a joke, those costs are just passed along to consumers and employees, expect higher prices, higher interest rates, higher taxes, and higher unemployment especially in the lower income jobs, those in the lower income or fixed income situations will become more and more poor as the prices and costs of living increase.

What evidence do have to support such claims?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So the government should help because people might turn to lives of crime?

I'm not speaking for @TLK Valentine but my takeaway from his post is that when real justice is not enforced enough by the government it results in people being hurt. That can be, as in his example, a rise in people turning to crime which hurts both the criminals and their victims directly and the rest of society indirectly.

That's why it's the government's obligation to enforce justice, including (and especially) within the economic system that the government has set up and maintains for the nation.

This is God-ordained (Romans 13), plus it is in the American constitution that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
- Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia

Biden is doing the right thing, something that is long overdue for the government to do. I don't even think he'll do it as much as he should but he's certainly going in the right direction in leading the nation correctly.

 

[98cwitr]

But we see constant attacks on the food stamp programs and limitations out the wazoo.

There should be more. Generational and systemic poverty are maintained by these programs under their current directives.

The other day I was in the grocery store and felt so bad for the young mother using SNAP type benefits the other day. It was like the store had to make her fill out something for every purchase. WHich meant everyone of us in line were made IMMEDIATELY aware that this poor woman was on food stamps. It seemed overly degrading.

I would feel shame not being able to provide for my family apart from taking from others, especially if I knew that the money funding my benefits was taken by force from my neighbors and not "cheerfully given" (as the Bible puts it). This would be the same with using private charity. I would want to be off these programs as quickly as possible as not to burden my neighbors any further than necessary to survive until I could once again provide for myself. This is the attitude of some, maybe even the mother in your example. It's not the attitude of all though. This would be much better suited in the hands of community churches, and not the government, as the government fails to form meaningful relationships with those they claim to "help."

We put restrictions and social opprobrium on poverty as if it is an STI.

You speak as if you wish for the poor to remain that way.

We as a nation can do better. But we hold onto this Puritanical idea that poverty is the direct result of bad life decisions only. (And even if it is due to some bad decisions, who among us makes perfect decisions all the time?)

Not always. Every situation is different and the causes are thus different. We cannot gauge those causes without forming relationships with people.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

What is your understanding of the plan?

This (from the article in the OP):
"President Biden’s multitrillion-dollar suite of economic proposals is aiming to both reinforce and rebuild an American middle class that feels it has been standing on shifting ground. And it comes with an explicit message that the private sector alone cannot deliver on that dream and that the government has a central part to play.

“When you look at periods of shared growth,” said Brian Deese, director of Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, “what you see is that public investment has played an absolutely critical role, not to the exclusion of private investment and innovation, but in laying the foundation.”"

 

[Oneiric1975]

There should be more. Generational and systemic poverty are maintained by these programs under their current directives.

Perhaps this feels like virtue? Personally I don't want to live in the richest nation in the history of the planet and still see people struggling for food.

I would feel shame not being able to provide for my family apart from taking from others, especially if I knew that the money funding my benefits was taken by force from my neighbors and not "cheerfully given" (as the Bible puts it).

Yet there are many REQUIREMENTS in the Bible to give to the poor (Ex 23:11 for example).

This would be the same with using private charity.

Charity is great, don't get me wrong. But coordinated programs across the entirety of the nation would be much more efficient. Studies find that charities seldom are able to meet the overall larger needs that a coordinated society-wide effort can.

I would want to be off these programs as quickly as possible

Thankfully most aid programs are used "short term" (SOURCE)

It's not the attitude of all though.

Not even the majority, so that's good.

You speak as if you wish for the poor to remain that way.

As it says in Galatians 2:10 remember the poor.

Unless you feel that charity also wishes for the poor to remain so?

 

[Hammster]

This (from the article in the OP):
"President Biden’s multitrillion-dollar suite of economic proposals is aiming to both reinforce and rebuild an American middle class that feels it has been standing on shifting ground. And it comes with an explicit message that the private sector alone cannot deliver on that dream and that the government has a central part to play.

“When you look at periods of shared growth,” said Brian Deese, director of Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, “what you see is that public investment has played an absolutely critical role, not to the exclusion of private investment and innovation, but in laying the foundation.”"

So again, what’s your understanding of the plan? What’s he going to do?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So the government should help because people might turn to lives of crime?

It is the duty of the government to "provide for the common defense," is it not?
That would necessarily include defending us form one another, would it not?

As a fiscal conservative, don't you think it's a sound financial investment to spend, say, $10,000 now to get poor people back on their feet, rather than the millions later to investigate, arrest, prosecute, sentence, and incarcerate them? (remembering also that while they're cooling their heels in a cell, they're contributing nothing to the economy)

And we're not even getting into the moral duty of helping those in need. Now, you might say that the government shouldn't be *forcing* you to do this, but as a Christian, you should be doing it already... but you can't do it all by yourself; it's a big task.

And maybe I'm just a wacky liberal who believes “The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.”

...but I can live with that.

 

[Hammster]

It is the duty of the government to "provide for the common defense," is it not?
That would necessarily include defending us form one another, would it not?

Robbing the local convenience store isn’t a federal crime.

As a fiscal conservative, don't you think it's a sound financial investment to spend, say, $10,000 now to get poor people back on their feet, rather than the millions later to investigate, arrest, prosecute, sentence, and incarcerate them? (remembering also that while they're cooling their heels in a cell, they're contributing nothing to the economy)

Why do you look down on poor people and think that they will turn to crime?

And we're not even getting into the moral duty of helping those in need. Now, you might say that the government shouldn't be *forcing* you to do this, but as a Christian, you should be doing it already... but you can't do it all by yourself; it's a big task.

What makes you think I don’t support the poor in my community and elsewhere?

And maybe I'm just a wacky liberal who believes “The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.”

...but I can live with that.

No doubt you can. That is until they come for your money.

 

[Oneiric1975]

No doubt you can. That is until they come for your money.

I'm more than happy for them to "come for my money". It's how I've lived most of my adult life. I don't have kids but my wife and I both happily pay taxes that go to support public schools because there's a value to an educated society. I'd gladly pay even more in taxes if it helped the poor in the community moreso. I'd pay more to see the homeless housed here as well.

A good society is worth its weight in gold to me.

 

[98cwitr]

Perhaps this feels like virtue? Personally I don't want to live in the richest nation in the history of the planet and still see people struggling for food.

You don't have to. Every opportunity that God gives us to help others, struggling with this very thing, we have the opportunity to aid them directly. We need not turn this over to the government to do for us.

Yet there are many REQUIREMENTS in the Bible to give to the poor (Ex 23:11 for example).

Absolutely, and none of which did Christ say "Let the Romans do it"

Charity is great, don't get me wrong. But coordinated programs across the entirety of the nation would be much more efficient. Studies find that charities seldom are able to meet the overall larger needs that a coordinated society-wide effort can.

I don't think they are...they're too broad and don't create communal relationships.

Thankfully most aid programs are used "short term" (SOURCE)

Are you not advocating for them to be long term so that people can simply live off the fruits of other's labors?

Not even the majority, so that's good.

There's no way you could know that.

As it says in Galatians 2:10 remember the poor.

Most certainly, and to the degree we willfully fail to charge that to others and perform these acts ourselves.

Unless you feel that charity also wishes for the poor to remain so?

By no means. I've watch programs like "Jobs for Life" pull people out of poverty.

 

[Hammster]

I'm more than happy for them to "come for my money". It's how I've lived most of my adult life. I don't have kids but my wife and I both happily pay taxes that go to support public schools because there's a value to an educated society. I'd gladly pay even more in taxes if it helped the poor in the community moreso. I'd pay more to see the homeless housed here as well.

A good society is worth its weight in gold to me.

If you are happy to pay more, then do it now. You are better at handling money than the government.

 

[Oneiric1975]

If you are happy to pay more, then do it now. You are better at handling money than the government.

As I said I already pay more than some. I pay taxes that go to support things I will never have anything directly to do with (no kids, so my property taxes that go to pay for schools pay for things I do not have a direct investment in).

I want a well-educated, stable society. I'm willing to pay for it. I don't expect a free lunch.

 

[Oneiric1975]

There's no way you could know that.

That's why I included the study finding that to be the case.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So again, what’s your understanding of the plan? What’s he going to do?

In short, he's going to invest in the infrastructure of the nation thereby creating jobs and enhancing/enabling existing jobs and he'll shift the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthiest classes. All of which is long overdue. He's doing an extremely miniature version of FDR's New Deal; it's not nearly enough but it's certainly in the right direction from both moral and governmental perspectives.

 

[Hammster]

As I said I already pay more than some. I pay taxes that go to support things I will never have anything directly to do with (no kids, so my property taxes that go to pay for schools pay for things I do not have a direct investment in).

I want a well-educated, stable society. I'm willing to pay for it. I don't expect a free lunch.

You said that you’d be okay paying more in taxes. Why not just figure out what that number would be and pay that now to some poor person?

 

[Oneiric1975]

You said that you’d be okay paying more in taxes. Why not just figure out what that number would be and pay that now to some poor person?

Because it would be more efficient if we as a society worked in a group to help the homeless. Me doing one donation wouldn't have as much impact as all of us doing it. (Don't get me wrong, I donate to charities and gave away all my COVID stimulus money to charities, but it's not enough. If we all do it as a society we could make big changes!)

 

[Fantine]

If labor unions had the prominence that they did in the 1950's and 60's and 70's then government probably wouldn't have to get involved.

Through negotiation, employees would have pensions, and job security, and health care, and living wages. They could have confidence that their children would have those things as adults, too.

They might even have some other benefits, like tuition assistance or profit sharing.

Do younger people even realize that before Reagan began the great union busting experiment, starting with the air traffic controllers, one factory worker could support a family and own a home on one income?

That would probably be a better solution. With unions, we wouldn't be dependent on the largesse of politicians who vote against the Affordable Care Act and other programs (while mouthing insincere thoughts and prayers).

Would prices be higher? Probably. But on the other hand wages and benefits would more than make up for them.

 

[Hammster]

Because it would be more efficient if we as a society worked in a group to help the homeless. Me doing one donation wouldn't have as much impact as all of us doing it. (Don't get me wrong, I donate to charities and gave away all my COVID stimulus money to charities, but it's not enough. If we all do it as a society we could make big changes!)

Do you honestly think that the government would do a better job at this than you?

 

[Hammster]

In short, he's going to invest in the infrastructure of the nation thereby creating jobs and enhancing/enabling existing jobs and he'll shift the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthiest classes. All of which is long overdue. He's doing an extremely miniature version of FDR's New Deal; it's not nearly enough but it's certainly in the right direction from both moral and governmental perspectives.

Will there be pork in this?