So if Time = Money...and Money is necessary to "spread the wealth", let's do a little experiment and take out the middle component to determine if "spreading the wealth" is fair, or even a good idea.
Let's say, for this argument's sake, that your job is one that you thoroughly love doing. So in the time component, we've got your time filled passion in the form of a job, sleeping time, and family time, and personal/leisure time, which would also be comprised of doing something you enjoyed.
So, for instance, your typical day is filled with your passion (work) which presumably provides a service or product for people, playing with the kids, spending time with the spouse, reading a good book, and then getting rest to do it all over again the next day.
Now, it's determined that "spreading the wealth" is good and is now government mandated. Since time = money, we're taking money away and using time as our wealth component.
Now a lady down the street, we'll call her Suzie, has applied and been approved for the "spread the wealth" government sharing program. Suzie is a drug addict, she has a life in boyfriend, and other than a part time job at the local fast food joint that Suzie has, her day is spent getting wasted. Still, the government has decided that she needs a fair shot and says that you need to help her out so that she can stay in her home and have the opportunity to get treatment for her addiction.
So at 4:00 every Tuesday, you have been assigned to mow Suzie's lawn and take her trash to the local dump, and any other odds and ends she needs you to do until 5:30. You have no option at this point. It's a government mandated program, and if you don't do your share, you're in violation of the law.
Of course, 4:00 to 5:30 is when you have to take your daughters to piano lessons, but don't worry about that. Someone else has been chosen by the government to "spread the wealth", and they will be taking your kids to piano lessons and then out to eat afterwords. They will have a good time...and who knows, maybe they will teach your daughters something.
After a couple of months, Suzie has relapsed. In all honesty, she never went to the treatment facility...she was out getting high. But she's at home all the time now, wasted, and you're still mandated to mow her lawn and help her out for an hour and a half weekly.
But all is right with the world...it's time for your daughter's recital. You go to your daughter's recital and are blown away by how good she is at playing the piano. Then you realize that you've missed an integral part of your daughter growing up. But at least you were "spreading the wealth", right?
After the recital, you all pile into the car and head to the local fast food joint to celebrate. Upon getting in the car, you learn that your daughter has added a few 4-letter words to her vocabulary, thanks the the other person that's been taking her to piano lessons. Nice. So you decide to get the food to go, because you're going to have to have a talk with your daughter and try to de-program her new vocabulary out of her.
You pull up to the fast food joint, and there's Suzie...ready to take and fill your order. She looks halfway strung out, so you're in that much more of a hurry to get out of there, and when you get home, you realize that Suzie completely jacked up your order. Now you're daughter's bawling because she didn't get her chicken nuggets...and now your de-programming time is put off for another day.
That sounds ludicrous, right? Well, it's no more ludicrous than "spreading the wealth" through the government mandated program of taxes. You're still giving away your heard earned "wealth" (time or money) to someone that is totally unwilling to help themselves. Why is everyone so eager to let our government spit in the face of our Constitution, which never called for any "spreading of the wealth" whatsoever?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
You know that I always enjoy your posts--but, this one is very exaggerated which I know that you know. It's also a bit stereotypical (sp?) to say anyone in need is apparently a drug addict also, in this exaggerated analogy. Very creative though. Have a great week. And, take care.
No...I wasn't saying that anyone in need is a drug addict. Of course that isn't the case. Listen, if anyone knows about needing help from time to time, either from the government or a helpful neighbor, it's the son of a single mother with 3 kids under 8 years old.
What I was trying to portray is the big picture of how ridiculous our tax dollars are used for people who really don't give a rip...about anything or anyone beyond theirselves. It seems as though people don't really care what their tax dollars goes for, but if those tax dollars were replaced with our precious time, maybe people would begin to get outraged.
That's why, in my comment section to Rocketstar in the post below this one, I have said and shown how charities are much more preferable to welfare. Charities make sure that the right people are getting help, and they make sure the donations are used much more efficiently than anything the government could put together. For instance, Medicare has over 35% fraud rate...35%!!! That's throwing our tax dollars away, and it's insane that we continue to stand for it. If that was a charity, or even a business, it would have been shut down LONG ago...and there would have likely been prosecutions.
Thanks for reading my blog Marel, I certainly appreciate it, and enjoy when you get time to reply. I'm glad you had a great week of vacation last week...I'm looking forward to mine soon.
It is sad, because you have both people on each side of the spectrum: a family who really needs the assistance and those who keep having more kids to keep getting more money to continue to keep using more drugs. There are no ways of finding who's doing what. They know who needs what, but the sad part is, even if they are in rehab or going to AA, they sometimes fall off the wagon. And I know not ALL people on public assistance, but we're all human, even the wealthy---half are addicts, half aren't.
Interesting post.
So it appears that you are a Darwinist in the sense that it is survival of the fittest. If you are in need but there really isn't a charity out there to help you and you can not help yourself for whatever reason (be it mental or physical) then you are screwed.
So do we as a nation just ignore those in need that do not have the tools to help themselves?
Nope...that's why God created churches.
Where did everyone go prior to Medicare/Medicaid? They all didn't just kick the bucket. You guessed it...the evil church pitched in and helped those that couldn't help themselves.
and if the Church won't help them?
Because the Church turns people away left and right??
Actually, yes they do as they do not have the capacity to help everyone that needs help.
I'm sure they would like to help but do not have the capacity to help everyone. Plus, they get to spread their religious views which they must see as a plus. I'm not saying that is their primary reason for helping (that woudl be because they are good and decent people), just a nice icing on the cake. ;o)
One church may not have the capacity to help everyone that needs help, of course. But the collection of churches could help nearly everyone that needs help, particularly in this increasingly giving society.
The fact is that it is not my obligation as a citizen to help people.
It is my obligation as a child of God, or even merely a good and descent person, to help people. There is a huge difference in the two.
One comes from a good and wholesome place in the heart. One comes from the iron fist of a slanted government that decided that we needed to be The Great Society.
"But the collection of churches could help nearly everyone that needs help, particularly in this increasingly giving society."
-- But I have to disagree here. The only way this is true is if millions more would give to church's to turn around and give to the poor.
How do you get that to happen?
The key word is needs help. Some people who are currently on Medicade would clearly be forced into actually doing some work. The Church wouldn't give free money to someone who was otherwise perfectly capable of contributing to society.
I think Medicade has ruined this country. Reliance on the government leads to apathy, which leads to a sense of helplessness.
Reliance on the Government didn't work out too well during Hurricane Katrina, now did it? Is that Government going to magically grow faster in response with more Government in the way?? Can we really see the same Government, plus extra bloating in a Democratic Administration, as being a quick and fast answer to "spreading the wealth" or Healthcare?
So this is what I hear you saying. There are not more people in "ture" need that the Churches can not help, they can help all people in "true" need for those in "untrue" need have to fend for themselves.
So who will be the judge and jury on the "true" needy and what to do with the increased crime and homelessness once the government stops providing care for those "untrue" needy that won't be able to or will not fend for themselves.
I totally agree with you that there are lazy asses out there sucking on the governments teet and would like to get them off, but just eliminating government help is not the solution. I think we need to reorg the government systmes, not eliminate them.
I think they have suffered from decades of government b.s. bureaucracy.
No easy solution for sure...
I think it's the perfect solution...to eliminate Government help, that is.
It's not in any way what the Founding Fathers envisioned for this country. They saw government as a necessary evil, and therefore necessary to keep as minimal as possible. If they wanted a big, centralized government, they would have just stayed in Europe.
To make anyone dependant on the government is to make them a slave to the government. Government doesn't have the people's best interest in mind...that fell to the wayside long ago.
Post a Comment