First of all, tremendous response. I agree that Obama's quote and general argument may be poor. However, to point to the "...you didn't build that" part is silly and destructive to any intelligent discussion on the topic.
I bolded two parts of your argument. I want to speak on the second one first:
I agree that "to say true innovators deserve no credit" is preposterous. The things is, Obama never said that. Like I pointed out earlier, he literally stated "we succeed because of our individual initiative." But his argument, essentially, is that we don't succeed ONLY because of our individual initiative. We need other things. Namely, a government to help facilitate progress by means of infrastructure, education, and regulation (he never said "regulation", but he didn't have to), and that we shouldn't take that for granted. So, yes, individual initiative is generally necessary but not sufficient to "success."
The first part I bolded isn't very clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "giving back." You used it pretty broadly. For the purposes of this conversation, I'll assume you mean "giving back" as taxes that fund things like social security, social welfare benefits and stuff like that.
Regarding the first bolded area - First of all, your viewpoint and the question you ask is a completely rational one. It's a sound argument that cannot be soundly defeated imo. It's an extremely broad question that asks a ton of philosophical questions. I don't have an absolute answer I'm comfortable with, and I'm not sure one exists. I doubt I'm capable of giving the question you asked an answer it deserves (especially in this medium), but here's a kind of wreckless, hurried attempt to explain my view on the subject:
Not everyone can be rich. In fact, a lot of people can't make enough to support themselves. In many cases, it isn't because they lack initiative or because they're not smart or drugs or whatever, but simple math. Whether our economy isn't capable of eliminating the "have-not" class or maybe some crazy circumstances occurred that was beyond individuals' control or something, there will always be poor people. Our society, our economy isn't this bizarre environment that automatically rewards people based on their amount of effort and intelligence. Guys on wall-street aren't 100x smarter or less lazy than the nurse, or stay at home mom, or whatever. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. My point is, I think it's true that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own. That's very important. With that in mind, it begs the philosophical question:
Should we, as a society, leave the survival of these (in many cases) innocent have-nots and the survival of their children, up to the altruistic whims of the society's "haves?"
I think that's probably dangerous. I think it's a bit naive and idealistic to imagine that if all social welfare programs were cut, that our country's poor would be in a better state they're currently in. I understand the counter-argument and if we're talking strictly economic liberty, then yeah, it's pretty sound.
However, if we're talking about doing what's best for the poor, then I think assuming a social welfare free society will be altruistic is definitely not the answer.
Dlew12, my sincerest gratitude for you debating with dignity and respect. You have elevated yourself in my eyes above the rest of the forum as a true intellect and if I have ever treated you disrespectful in the past, or if I ever do in the future - I have forgotten whome I was talking to, and you have my sincerest apologies. We, You and I, can have a civil conversation and I hope to gain perspective through our discussion, and hope to impart some of my own.
As to the insinuated "you didn't build that" statement quoted of Obama - I don't really wish to continue this discussion. My input was rather hollow and not so much directed at the taboo's of Obama's possible insinuation, but as you put it - It is entirely up to interpretation - and I was positioning for anyone that could have taken his statement as I put it. I cede to this particular argument and wish to move on. After all, statements left open to interpretation are nothing but mud slinging fuel and really do nothing to gain traction in the elevation of society.
The issue I am excited to speak about were in regards to the first part you bolded. I’ll be honest, I do not know the context of the original quote, and as to “giving back” – I pulled it directly from the quote, and you and I both arrived upon the same conclusion of helping the impoverished. Surely two intelligent people such as ourselves making the same assumptions can only indicate the accuracy in our assumptions. After all, perception dictates reality.
Anyway, I agree – there will always be the poor and many will arrive at this point through no fault of their own. My issue with the current system is multi-faceted, but it centers around three major themes.
1. Will ALL of society be elevated through this system?
2. Is it treating the cause or the symptom?
3. Is the very nature of our financial structure creating victims that fall into poverty?
Let me answer #1 and #2 with a hopefully short and engaging story. Six years ago I was getting gas at a local Quiktrip and was approached by a clearly poor dirty elderly man who did not ask for money or food. He asked for gasoline. He was traveling to Oklahoma and did not have enough money to make it, and had relegated himself to humility. I’m ashamed to admit that I declined his request. I’ll never forget the look on his face as I turned him down; his hope in humanity was slowly fading through my actions. My initial thought as he approached was: “get a job, you worthless drain on society.” It wasn’t until I was back in my vehicle driving home before I realized what I had done. I was bitter, hateful, and selfish. I tried to think of how I had arrived at such a miserable existence and it occurred to me, that I felt I was doing enough – paying my taxes. “How dare that bad person approach ME and ask for more! Couldn’t he see that I had my work badge on, and I was clearly a tax payer?” I’m still ashamed to repeat that, but that was exactly how I felt when he approached me. That’s how millions of Americans feel – They’re doing their part by keeping their mouth shut and paying their taxes and any request for MORE is met with disgust. I began attempts to change my thought process that day – I decided that 10 dollars in gas meant nothing to me, but could be the difference in 1 man witnessing his grandchild being born. That is how the gift of giving is born. That is how employees of large corporations donate a portion of their income, through their company, to things like “Good Neighbor Fund” A pure charity where 100% of all money and time goes to fund soup kitchens – donates time to build habitat for humanity – and collects donations for “tools for school” an organization that gives school supplies to the impoverished children of Kansas, among many other worthy causes. I’m not saying people will donate to these charities more if they’re not paying taxes, but I am saying it will exponentially decrease the “get a job bad person” mentality. There is a sense of satisfaction and great reward in giving and it drives people to continue giving. Paying taxes robs people of this satisfaction of helping and does nothing for the elevation of all society.
I’m sure some people may be able to construe that as selfishness…. Only giving to feel something in return? But what about the people on the receiving end? How much better does that person feel when they humbly ask for help, and they receive it? They feel WORTHY. It shows them Love. It provides Hope. Hope often translates into opportunity. Opportunity translates into ability to better their life. It treats the cause of poverty, not the symptom. No one wants to be dependant – asking for money, or waiting on a government check. The satisfaction of doing something yourself is eternally rewarding and everyone has that built into them. That is why I question the governments need to facilitate this transaction. People will help, and as a result, I believe people will help themselves more. It can be a hand up, not a hand out.
#3 of my major concerns addresses something you said about everyone’s ability to be wealthy. In this system, I agree, but partially disagree in that it doesn’t have to be that way. Everyone can be wealthy, based off of their own definition of wealth. $30,000 to one, may be as much as $300,000 to some. It’s all relative, but what creates the really enormous gap, and assures that there is a poor class, in my opinion, is the very nature of our financial structure. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, our currency is controlled by a private organization that can print excess of money, inflate the economy – charge interest, then deflate the economy – all with no checks and balances. Right now, as I stated above, we borrow 40% of every government dollar spent. All of that borrowed money is supplied by the federal reserve, who in turn charges interest. The tax money we pay, barely covers the interest alone. So what are we doing? We’re paying off a credit card, with another credit card. Our taxes aren’t even paying for the services we’re being sold on. The debt is never ending. When more debt is created, the banks need more money to loan out, the government borrows more money, the Fed prints more money to give out, charges more interest, creating more debt & the increasing amount of money being printed inflates the dollar making the people printing the money richer and the people spending the money poorer. That’s the argument against Fiat money. People may argue that without being able to manipulate the economy, you cannot stimulate it. This is a lie, propagated by bankers in the early 1900’s and propagated by spreading lies of bankers going bankrupt – which people were weary of. As panic spread, people rushed to the banks to pull out their $$ causing debts to be recalled – causing mass bankruptcy for those who had borried and were not able to pay their debt at a moments notice. The bankers had manipulated the market to advocate for a centralized banking system that would supposedly prevent mass hysteria and fears of bankruptcy. What people forget however, is centralized banking is the very reason the early colonies fought to escape British rule – and we successfully evaded a banker owned government for over 100 years. You can draw whatever assumptions you like, but the facts remain, and no one can argue, that the U.S. dollar is controlled by a private bank who only makes $$ when they loan out $$. If you can accept that, you may start to wonder just what a capitalist that controls the market would do to make a little more. You may question why we pay federal taxes. You may wonder why our public education has gone to crap and kids are taught to pass a test instead of learning to think for themselves. You may wonder why we’re in these countless wars that seem to do nothing but breed hunger for more contracts, more spending, & more control over the world as we chase an elusive possibly non-existent enemy. You may wonder if there are politicians out there thirsting for power that would agree to legislate anything to get it.
I don’t have strong enough convictions in believing anything I insinuated above, at least enough so, to make an ass of myself… but I do wonder. I’m also not going to ask people to believe any of these things above, but I do hope people ask questions.
