Posts
Funny cartoon!
The first time I saw this I chuckled and was instantly reminded of family parties where there was a pinata. Or our big family egg hunt. MUCH candy in either instance. Everyone had a good time getting what they could.
Yet everyone knew that at the end, all of the candy/eggs would go into a pot and it would be divided up so that everyone got the same amount.
We still got a lot of candy. Maybe not as much as we originally were able to grab, but it was enough to keep everyone happy. And I always liked that if I weren't pushy, even to the point of being mean, I wouldn't have to worry about going home with only a few pieces of candy while some of the other kids enjoyed massive amounts of it.
So, by me not jumping in and being overly aggressive because my personality is more reserved mean that I am more lazy?
Let's go back to trick or treating. I remember when I was 13 going down to the valley in my friend's neighborhood so that we could RUN from house to house and get a LOT of candy. I think my sister went with her friends/my parents up in our neighborhood on the hill. She got probably about half of the amount of candy that I did.
Now, when my parents asked me to share with my siblings (and them ;) ), it was hard to do, but I knew that if my sister had been given the opportunity and had the ability to run to as many houses as I did, that she probably could have gotten a lot of candy as well. And really, did I need THAT much candy? So sharing it was.
Often, all of our candy was put into one big bowl and we all got to eat from it.
Now in the case of this cartoon, I took a second to think about where the candy would be going to.
Certainly it's not just lazy kids who don't trick or treat. In fact, I think those kinds of kids are probably in the minority. I bet some of my candy would be going to the kids in hospitals or kids that are too sick or disabled to go trick or treating. And probably some of it would go to the some kids who maybe live in The Projects where maybe there isn't as much candy because no one really gives any out because they don't have money for it. Maybe some would go to the kid who can't go trick or treating because his neighborhood in unsafe. Homeless kids- I'd want them to have some. Maybe some would go to kids who just don't know about trick or treating because their parents never taught them.
Opportunity, education, circumstance. Three huge factors.
And thinking about giving on a religious level, I told my Sunbeams a couple of weeks ago the story of the loaves and the fishes. One boy had enough for himself, but he was willing to give it to Jesus and in turn, many were blessed.
Sadly, I have a hard time trusting people in our nation to freely give of their means. I know it's hard even for myself to recognize that I, in comparison with a huge portion of society, live in abundance. Things that I sometimes think are necessary are HUGE luxuries to many. And it's terribly hard to just stop acquiring things and stop wanting them. But as I stop thinking of myself and trying to live a simpler life, I am better able to give.
For me, if I am living a simpler life, taxes aren't as much of a burden because I don't want many things. Less want means more money left to give instead of spending on myself. Taxes become a way for me to give to those who may need some help.
So what about dependency on the government? Well, I agree that it can become a problem. Do I personally know of a way to fix it, no. I do think though that there are better and more efficient ways to do most things, so yes, adjustments should probably be made to many programs. But how can adjustments be made without costing more money (at least initially)?
Those are all the thoughts I have for now... I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
The first time I saw this I chuckled and was instantly reminded of family parties where there was a pinata. Or our big family egg hunt. MUCH candy in either instance. Everyone had a good time getting what they could.
Yet everyone knew that at the end, all of the candy/eggs would go into a pot and it would be divided up so that everyone got the same amount.
We still got a lot of candy. Maybe not as much as we originally were able to grab, but it was enough to keep everyone happy. And I always liked that if I weren't pushy, even to the point of being mean, I wouldn't have to worry about going home with only a few pieces of candy while some of the other kids enjoyed massive amounts of it.
So, by me not jumping in and being overly aggressive because my personality is more reserved mean that I am more lazy?
Let's go back to trick or treating. I remember when I was 13 going down to the valley in my friend's neighborhood so that we could RUN from house to house and get a LOT of candy. I think my sister went with her friends/my parents up in our neighborhood on the hill. She got probably about half of the amount of candy that I did.
Now, when my parents asked me to share with my siblings (and them ;) ), it was hard to do, but I knew that if my sister had been given the opportunity and had the ability to run to as many houses as I did, that she probably could have gotten a lot of candy as well. And really, did I need THAT much candy? So sharing it was.
Often, all of our candy was put into one big bowl and we all got to eat from it.
Now in the case of this cartoon, I took a second to think about where the candy would be going to.
Certainly it's not just lazy kids who don't trick or treat. In fact, I think those kinds of kids are probably in the minority. I bet some of my candy would be going to the kids in hospitals or kids that are too sick or disabled to go trick or treating. And probably some of it would go to the some kids who maybe live in The Projects where maybe there isn't as much candy because no one really gives any out because they don't have money for it. Maybe some would go to the kid who can't go trick or treating because his neighborhood in unsafe. Homeless kids- I'd want them to have some. Maybe some would go to kids who just don't know about trick or treating because their parents never taught them.
Opportunity, education, circumstance. Three huge factors.
And thinking about giving on a religious level, I told my Sunbeams a couple of weeks ago the story of the loaves and the fishes. One boy had enough for himself, but he was willing to give it to Jesus and in turn, many were blessed.
Sadly, I have a hard time trusting people in our nation to freely give of their means. I know it's hard even for myself to recognize that I, in comparison with a huge portion of society, live in abundance. Things that I sometimes think are necessary are HUGE luxuries to many. And it's terribly hard to just stop acquiring things and stop wanting them. But as I stop thinking of myself and trying to live a simpler life, I am better able to give.
For me, if I am living a simpler life, taxes aren't as much of a burden because I don't want many things. Less want means more money left to give instead of spending on myself. Taxes become a way for me to give to those who may need some help.
So what about dependency on the government? Well, I agree that it can become a problem. Do I personally know of a way to fix it, no. I do think though that there are better and more efficient ways to do most things, so yes, adjustments should probably be made to many programs. But how can adjustments be made without costing more money (at least initially)?
Those are all the thoughts I have for now... I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
6 Comments:
We always put all our candy in a big bowl too.
And I'm with you. Not that I think communism is good, but I do think that taxes should be used to fund government programs that work. Frankly, I'd rather live in a society where everybody has their basic needs met than one where twenty percent of the people control eighty percent of the wealth.
Girl, you said it. I feel exactly the same way -- and it irritates me to no end when politicians use words like "socialism" as scare tactics. Hate it.
I do feel that there could be much more accountability in many welfare programs. And I feel like food stamps should be more like WIC or Church assistance -- where you can choose from certain, life-sustaining foods that are not convenience or junk foods (ask Kim about that from her gas station days).
More than anything, it saddens me that we in the Christian community (of all places!) are so quick to turn to justice and judgement rather than mercy, understanding, and forgiveness.
Good points. I don't like fear-mongering and I agree with some of the comments that the McCain campaign is using the term "socialism" as a scare tactic.
However, it can't be ignored that BOTH of the candidates are proposing some programs that incorporate socialist ideals. This is not necessary a bad thing, it is just a fact.
I wish both candidates would focus more on encouraging families, churches, and other private social organizations to provide the "welfare" that many people need. To Obama's credit, he has engaged in some of that dialogue.
Of course some government social programs will always be needed. The fundamental problem is that government social programs (federal, state, and municipal) are generally inefficient and often create more problems than they solve.
And one more thing... I wish both candidates would be more honest with us. The socialist programs they are proposing are very expensive (again, I'm not trying to use this word as a bad thing, because it may not be). If they really want to implement these programs, they need to be honest with us about how they intend to pay for them. Both candidates are proposing FAR more spending than the government could afford under their currently proposed tax plans. When asked about this, they both dance around the question by saying they are going to make government "work more efficiently." How? What are they going to do differently? People have been trying to make government work more efficiently for years and it is still inefficient.
"when my parents asked me to share"
so you were given a choice? doesn't that make what you did charity?
i have absolutely no problem with charity, i think charitable giving is wonderful and commendable.
i do have a problem with bureaucratic crap. i do have a problem with pork (pork is yummy, pork bills make me sick). i do have a problem with wealth redistribution (i've seen first hand how it doesn't work).
Opportunity, education, circumstance. Three huge factors.
Yup, those three things matter. Our schools do need fixing, but throwing money at problems doesn't fix them. LA Unified School District is a really good example of that. LAUSD spent over $400 million on construction of one high school, LAUSD is asking for $7 billion bond measure. And they haven't spent all the money they got from the last bond measure. Along with all that money only 48% of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District graduate on time. LAUSD has the opportunity and circumstances to provide a quality education for their students, but they don't. They just don't. Who's fault is it that LAUSD is getting away with all of this.
You know what my theory is? Parents make the biggest difference. Good parenting is the great equalizer. Parents who are positively engaged in every aspect of their childrens lives. We need to fix the family.
The only person who can fix the family is Christ.
There's nothing wrong with having a social conscience :-). I can understand the desire to be free of government meddling with personal gains, it appeals to a sense of Jeffersonian liberty. However, I think calling the majority of recipients of government aid "lazy" has always been an ignorant argument and justification for greed. I think the majority of people who receive aid can be classified as the working poor, and they only take it in order to get back on their feet to run on their own steam again.
I respect the people I know who are practical with their wealth in terms of spending and generous giving. On the other hand, it can really boggle my mind to think about the gross amounts of money the upper crust can spend on things which are neither useful nor appealing in a blind culture of excess... then I don't feel so bad about the government taking a portion of their money away. But even then, is it their right?
When the constitution was written, it was written with the intent to let the people govern themselves in state, county, community governments. If trouble occurred you could appeal to the Federal government, but those issues should be few and far between.
Texas was careful in how it worded it's constitution to reserve rights it felt it needed. (Can't beleive I'm defending Texas here) http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp
My point is:
This is a cartoon poking fun at socialism and communism. To compare it to the story of the loaves and fishes and the law of consecration is not fair. The boy in the story had a choice to share his loaf. You make an oath to (choice, and covenant - it's a two-way street) to obey the law of consecration. Where is my choice to pay taxes. Aren't income taxes unconstitutional?
For me it comes down to this, I DO NOT want to pay for people's medical care who smoke, drink, do drugs, participate in unsafe sex (at whatever age and lifestyle) if I don't have to. Those people should pay more than me for their health care because they participate in UNHEALTHY activities. I have enough problems of my own than to do deal with the nations problems. Insurance, Social Security, and other programs are fundamentally flawed systems. You are paying for peace of mind, something that is really difficult to put a price on, and I don't think anyone in our government is qualified to do so.
You may ask who I'm voting for. Well, I'm writing in my vote.
Post a Comment