Comments on Tim, the Enchanter: Tyrants and Deceivers

I was faced with a situation a few years ago while...

2008-06-25T11:28:00.000-07:00

I was faced with a situation a few years ago while my wife was pregnant. Due to a permanent medical condition of hers, private insurance was only available through HIPA. I was between jobs, and wasn't at my last job long enough to qualify for CORBA. Since group coverage (and COSTLY group coverage) was the only way I could insure my wife while delivering the baby, I made it a requisite that my new employer, whoever that be, have a group policy. (in retrospect, I would have just gone and formed an alliance with free-lancer, but I didn't know then what I know now).

I have been against government welfare for years now. I will not label a bank robber who gives his plunder to the poor as charitable. Similarly, I will not call government welfare good.

I was tempted by my boss to go on medicare. The argument he used is reminiscent of your logic: "you're paying for it anyways". I knew there were other options - medicare was an easy way out though. I was left with a choice, do I abandon my principle and take the easy route, or do I continue striving for what I know to be possible and true, and take the difficult route. Surely there is some dollar amount to insure my wife.

I took the hard route. The company I signed up for got an Altius group plan. My boss got on the plan out of requisite and was doubly insured. This translated to a smaller paycheck. The insurance was more expensive, but it was not paid for by stolen money. It was fulfilling.

Some may say "but you got lucky"! Did I? Or did I just not succumb to the easy? Did I prove that I was willing to work and give it my all to make it happen? There is a principle contained here which reveals why socialism leads to poverty and lack.

So, in answer to the prior comment, my suggestion is no - you do not take it.

By taking it, you're not helping to stop the government welfare system, but to expand it. Sure, one person persons vote may not sway the election, but by taking it, you are cheating yourself out of life. You are taking money from a thief. No matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, it is plundered money. Some of it may be given willingly by those deceived into thinking that government welfare helps the needy and therefore it is good, but deception is force too. There are surely better stewards over their willful charitable dollars than the government.

Now - I wasn't asked if you should take welfare help if you need it. My answer is "of course"! That is, If you take it to get on your feet again, and then to a point where you can help others. There are many better systems of welfare, and a reason for the existence of, private welfare. Government welfare, as it is not properly labeled, is destructive of true welfare.

my question is...say you CAN receive welfare, but ...

2008-06-25T10:54:00.000-07:00

my question is...say you CAN receive welfare, but don't actually totally need it. You also recognize the fact that you are going to be paying for that welfare later in life, whether you take it now, or not. Do you take it?

I agree with you. People have stopped caring about...

2008-06-06T16:06:00.000-07:00

I agree with you. People have stopped caring about most political things because they don't feel they can make any difference and so leave the country to the politicians. And our country continues to suffer because of it.
On the flip side, those who do care (or bother to vote) a lot of times confuse what's right and good for the country with charisma. As long as the politician says what's popular and looks good while saying it (amongst a huge crowd that are thrilled with every word out of their mouth) then that's who they vote for. I agree that on the surface Senator Obama looks like a great option for president. I was considering voting for him at one point. However, like you, once I actually looked at his policies I realized that his policies wouldn't be a good thing for the country.
I believe that politicians (at least most of them) really are trying to do their best (or started out that way). They just don't understand the consequences of what they're proposing or have been deceived by what the lobbyists have been telling them.
The pioneering drive that this country started out with is being lost in the entitlement to support from the government. And the people who really want to get away from that kind of life are really discouraged from doing so because there is a time when they can't make enough to support their family and yet they make too much to have any support from the government. We're perpetuating a "temporary" solution that continues to hurt our country and it's people.

I agree with you 100%. This towards socialism worr...

2008-06-06T01:32:00.000-07:00

I agree with you 100%. This towards socialism worries me because although it may sound nice it teaches people to rely on the government. I have found that when people grow up dependent they live the life given them rather than creating their own life.

I too spend a good deal of time among the poor. In England the poor had food, housing and healthcare given to them. The result is that the children in those communities are lifeless. I saw so many kids had no drive for their lives. They were without ambition. Their parents got just enough from the government that they could get by fine on what they were getting for free, so they had no motivation to improve themselves, and the kids were following their examples.