Religious States Are More Charitable

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

.

The Rand article was a gross misunderstanding of Rand. Just one point from there, yes homeowners may get tax deductions but they also pay the real estate taxes which fund children's educations and other community projects. And my estate taxes are very high and go up every year even though my property values keep going down.

As to the charitable giving and the "parasites", government has created the parasites by its unbridled giving without even checking into who actually needs help and without regulating how those funds are spent and without requiring some kind of work or service to compensate. We have lost the work ethic and if you don't believe that ask any employer, particularly of physical labor, how hard it is to find good dependable workers under a certain age.

Government has expanded its purpose far beyond the bounds foreseen by the Founding Fathers, and in fact the purpose of the Constitution was to specifically spell out limitations to what the Feds could do. How can a bureaucracy centered on the east coast possibly meet the needs of a country with such diverse populations and needs. Most people are very charitable and I have been in many communities where families have lost everything and neighbors and even strangers give help. Such things are the responsibilities of individuals and local communities. I really believe that if so much wasn't taken in taxes more people would give to help the truly needy. I know I would.

Just asking for clarification. I like to address the problems of those that originate the ideas.

Ayn Rand hated Ronald Reagan, despised religion in general and Christianity in particular. If you weren't rich she had no use for you, you were a useless eater. Yet when she got lung cancer, from smoking, she depended on us useless eaters to keep her alive. She never in her lifetime earned enough from her books to even pay for her medicine.

Once your home is paid off the mortgage interest tax deduction can not be claimed. I know I pay 1/2 of my property taxes two times a year.

Do you mean real estate or just estate taxes? My real estate taxes about about 2-1/2%. They pay for the police department, fire department, teachers, schools, our library, 911 response, vector control, city lighting and traffic lights, and whole host of other services, that individually we could not pay for. That is what government is. People working together to make life better for us all.

My state allows for reassessments of property taxes. If you feel that your assessment is too high ask for a new one.

Which parasites would those be? The Bain Capital's of the world that pay little to no taxes; the super rich that pay even less? Or is it the parent of a child with disabilities that must work two full time jobs and still falls behind each month?

Individual worker productivity has increased every year for over the last thirty + years. But our middle income workers have been losing ground in constant inflation adjusted dollars and relative to the rich.

People expect to be paid for their work. Hard physical laborers along with them. Few WANT, for example stoop labor, for the less than minimum wage that is paid. Pay them more and you'll get more laborers. Simple as that. Before I retired I was making about $30/hr. A nice upper middle class living when my wife's income was included. But I guarantee you I wouldn't do it today for $7.75/hr that is the national minimum wage.

President Clinton established the work requirement for welfare. That is still the law. Further it is a lie that President Obama wants to eliminate that requirement.

The Founding Fathers probably never envisioned a great many things we take as every day necessities. I doubt they ever heard of the internet, or air planes, or modern medicine or life without Tri-cornered hats, for that matter.

No the US Constitution wasn't a strict limitation on the Feds. Read the Federalists Papers for the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause. What you are asking for is a return to the Articles of Confederation with its strict limitations on the Feds. George Washington hated them, and we got rid of them with the US Constitution.

Actually most Federal programs are Federally funded while state/county, and sometimes city administered. The three biggest expenditures by the Feds are the interest on the debt, Social Security, and the Department of Defense. No state let alone county/city can afford any of those let alone all three.

Sounds like a nice community to me. However neither you nor they can run a government on charity alone.

Statistics prove that it is the middle class that gives the most as a percentage of income. Plus if you are in the middle class you would find life very hard without the goods and services our government provides through taxes.

[The Nehor]

An interesting article throwing doubt on this:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1846516.html

In one indication of the gap between perception and reality, 10 percent of the respondents to the generosity survey reported tithing 10 percent of their income to charity although their records showed they gave $200 or less.

In the struggle between the charitable demands of faith and the desire to hold on to and accumulate personal possessions, mammon appears to be winning.

Does it matter. You think either one is wrong but I was referring to Ayn, whose works I've read multiple times.

So the woman who took more out of government then she gave due to health issues and social security benefits?

The woman who idolized a child murderer as "better" then the masses? Her little bit: "What is good for me is right," comes from the mouth of a murderer.

This quote sums up my thoughts:

"That Ayn Rand saw something heroic, brilliant, and romantic in this despicable creature is perhaps the single worst indictment of her that I have come across. It is enough to make me question not only her judgment, but her sanity.

At this point in my life, I did not think it was possible to significantly lower my estimate of Ayn Rand, or to regard her as even more of a psychological and moral mess than I had already taken her to be.

I stand corrected."

http://michaelpresco...stone-cold.html

When I heard that Ryan was pro-Ayn Rand I decided to vote for Obama. I stopped listening to conservative talk radio when they started endorsing her as I could not justify wasting any of my time listening to any adult who could praise those horrible novels. They make Twilight look like Shakespeare.

[media=]

Things Rand has said:

Most people in the world are unworthy of love and should not receive any as love placed above oneself is inherently immoral.

Altruism is evil.

Medicare is a hoodlum who robs and kills to get champagne and a yacht.

She actively scorns churches as evil.

How in the world has this woman influenced any LDS people let alone any Christian in general?

I think I am going to go bang my head against a wall now.

[thesometimesaint]

The Nehor:

Beating your own head against a wall just hurts. But how any member of the Church could be a follower of Rand is beyond me.

[TAO]

Uh... the Nehor, while I don't like Rand, I wouldn't question her sanity.

Believe she is wrong, definitely... but to question sanity is to go a bit too far imho.

I've never been a fan of arguments that try to discredit others based on sanity. After all, to others who heavily disagree with us, we are all insane. But I don't believe I'm insane, regardless of what they think of me.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

Two thoughts.

1. Insanity is hereditary. We get it from our kids.

2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[TAO]

TAO:

Two thoughts.

1. Insanity is hereditary. We get it from our kids.

2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

That's the dictionary definition, not the rhetorical definition (which is what I was meaning to refer to).

I am trying to caution people from using the rhetorical one. If you consider people insane, simply because they support different things than you do, you justify them considering you insane, for the same reason. Things like that.

[Deborah]

Beating your own head against a wall just hurts. But how any member of the Church could be a follower of Rand is beyond me.

Being a follower of her philosophy of independence and hard work are not the same as agreeing with her lifestyle. Atlas Shrugged was very prophetic in describing what we see happening to the the country today.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

She lived her own lifestyle, and we paid to keep her alive, just so she could call us useless eaters. She freeloaded off her admirers for her financial support. Then when times got tough she claimed her husband's Social Security benefits that she never paid into. That may be your definition of independence, but it isn't mine.

Hard work don't make me laugh. She was a famous libertine "Party Girl" who was dismissive of any one who wasn't rich. She couldn't even live to her own "standards" as loose as they were. Her books are pedantic as well as mendacious with a malicious hatred of people not like her in general and Christians in particular. She truly was a misanthrope.

Prophetic maybe, in a degrading sort of way. We have politicians vying to see who can cut the most of what little safety net we have for the poor, and middle class. Along with which one can start more wars the fastest. Politicians who think nothing of lying even when that falsehood is pointed out to them. That propound ideas that increase taxes on the poor and middle class and give Trillion dollar tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

[Deborah]

sometimes you obviously knew nothing of her early life.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

What more do I need to know of her early life.?

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;^[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,^[2] playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism.

Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. After two early novels that were initially less successful, she achieved fame with her 1943 novel The Fountainhead. In 1957, she published her best-known work, the novel Atlas Shrugged. Afterward she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, publishing her own magazines and releasing several collections of essays until her death in 1982.

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. She promoted romantic realism in art. She was sharply critical of the philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except Aristotle.

Rand's fiction was poorly received by many literary critics,^[3] and academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.^[4] She has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.^[5]

[Deborah]

As I said you know nothing of her early life. Her successes aren't the story of struggle and poverty.

[The Nehor]

Uh... the Nehor, while I don't like Rand, I wouldn't question her sanity.

I would as long as being a sociopath makes one insane (and I believe it does).

Believe she is wrong, definitely... but to question sanity is to go a bit too far imho.

I've never been a fan of arguments that try to discredit others based on sanity. After all, to others who heavily disagree with us, we are all insane. But I don't believe I'm insane, regardless of what they think of me.

The secret is to accept your insanity as superior to everyone else's.

Being a follower of her philosophy of independence and hard work are not the same as agreeing with her lifestyle. Atlas Shrugged was very prophetic in describing what we see happening to the the country today.

No. Never have the wealthy had such control of their money and taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest since World War II. Socialist ideas peaked in the 70's and Reaganism largely defeated them. Obama is a moderate no matter what Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity say.

sometimes you obviously knew nothing of her early life.

In her early life she was praising a murderer as superior to the weak and mindless jurors who sent the monster to prison.

Deborah:

She lived her own lifestyle, and we paid to keep her alive, just so she could call us useless eaters. She freeloaded off her admirers for her financial support. Then when times got tough she claimed her husband's Social Security benefits that she never paid into. That may be your definition of independence, but it isn't mine.

Hard work don't make me laugh. She was a famous libertine "Party Girl" who was dismissive of any one who wasn't rich. She couldn't even live to her own "standards" as loose as they were. Her books are pedantic as well as mendacious with a malicious hatred of people not like her in general and Christians in particular. She truly was a misanthrope.

Prophetic maybe, in a degrading sort of way. We have politicians vying to see who can cut the most of what little safety net we have for the poor, and middle class. Along with which one can start more wars the fastest. Politicians who think nothing of lying even when that falsehood is pointed out to them. That propound ideas that increase taxes on the poor and middle class and give Trillion dollar tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

A thousand times this. Rand couldn't even support herself.

[The Nehor]

The Nehor:

Beating your own head against a wall just hurts. But how any member of the Church could be a follower of Rand is beyond me.

On the bright side the debate between the Gospel and Objectivists will be short.

Randian Follower:

"What is mine is mine. I earned it even if I didn't and I have the right to enjoy it. I produced and you owe me nothing but gratitude no matter what I do with it."

Jesus:

"You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

Jesus is such a jerk....not a respecter of property and captains of industry at all. So sad.

[thesometimesaint]

The Nehor:

Jesus I like, Rand not so much.

[TAO]

I would as long as being a sociopath makes one insane (and I believe it does).

Regardless, it's a poor reason to dismiss an argument. Fallacious, perhaps, even. And that's ignoring the issue of getting a definition of insanity, which is something which is kind of subjective in a sense anyways (but that more has to do with my literary constructivism, rather than Ayn Rand).

The secret is to accept your insanity as superior to everyone else's.

I've seen too many people do this to want to do such =/.

[thesometimesaint]

All the worlds' people are insane except thee and me, and I worry about thee.

[Deborah]

For all you Ayn Rand lovers.

http://www.atlasshru...-part-2-trailer

[The Nehor]

Regardless, it's a poor reason to dismiss an argument. Fallacious, perhaps, even.

After careful consideration I have realized you are correct. Ayn Rand being a sociopath is a bad reason to dismiss her arguments. I will dismiss her argument on the grounds that the argument itself is sociopathic and not because she is a sociopath.

[The Nehor]

For all you Ayn Rand lovers.

http://www.atlasshru...-part-2-trailer

One hopes that when this one bombs those behind it will recognize that the bomb is due to the free market rejecting it as trash and not try to blame it on other factors. If you are going to make a propaganda film about how ultra-capitalism is the greatest thing ever have some faith in capitalism and when it tells you that your product is awful admit that your product is awful.

[Deborah]

The first one was successful enough to make this second one, and with a much higher budget. The theater I was in was packed. I hope they advertise this one better. Many of those who saw it read the book afterwards if they hadn't already.

[thesometimesaint]

The books are always better than the movies, but that doesn't speak much to value of the books. I read both her books as a teenager. Thought them a bore then and my opinion of them hasn't improved over the years. Sociopathic is the kindest thing that can be said about the books.

[tyler90az]

What would happen if welfare ended today?

I know one thing that would not happen. Society would not pick up the slack by making more charitable contributions.

I know one thing that would happen. Crime and unrest would shoot up to extraordinary levels.

See, welfare is truly a safety net for the rich. If it was not for welfare, the class lines would draw closer.

[TAO]

After careful consideration I have realized you are correct. Ayn Rand being a sociopath is a bad reason to dismiss her arguments. I will dismiss her argument on the grounds that the argument itself is sociopathic and not because she is a sociopath.

You misunderstand.

What makes 'socipathic' objectively wrong?

The answer is - it isn't. It's subjectively wrong. Not all people are going to think that a sociopathic argument is wrong, so you will need stronger grounds to reject it if you want to convince anybody who believes it isn't wrong.

[Deborah]

What would happen if welfare ended today?

What do you think will happen when the economy totally collapses because we have no more credit or money to print? That is the message of Atlas Shrugged.

I think that where there are needs in communities churches and other groups will step forth. And yes there will certainly be civil unrest, especially in certain areas, but this is inevitable in any case the way the country is moving.

[The Nehor]

You misunderstand.

What makes 'socipathic' objectively wrong?

The answer is - it isn't. It's subjectively wrong. Not all people are going to think that a sociopathic argument is wrong, so you will need stronger grounds to reject it if you want to convince anybody who believes it isn't wrong.

so·ci·o·path

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I consider someone like this objectively wrong and broken and have no desire to live in a world where judging sociopaths as wrong is a subjective judgment.

What do you think will happen when the economy totally collapses because we have no more credit or money to print? That is the message of Atlas Shrugged.

I think that where there are needs in communities churches and other groups will step forth. And yes there will certainly be civil unrest, especially in certain areas, but this is inevitable in any case the way the country is moving.

The rich-poor gap has NEVER been so wide in our nation's history and taxes on the rich have NEVER been so low since World War II. On what basis do you suggest we are moving towards a welfare state where the government is gorging itself on the profits of the wealthy. If anything we are moving away from it.

Ayn Rand's glorified feudalism without even the pretense of noblesse oblige is not something we are running from right now. We are running towards it.