Story from CNS News. (H/T Weasel Zippers via ECM)
Excerpt:
During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year–2010–more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.
Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.
I personally know a lot of people who voted for Obama because we were spending too much on the war. The government’s job is to fight against the enemies of the United States. The government’s job is not to equalize life outcomes regardless of lifestyle choices. But I guess Obama has to buy votes somehow! How else will he be able to get re-elected unless he takes from the productive minority to pay for the votes of the irresponsible majority?
Don’t forget my previous post on the CBO’s projections about Social Security running cash deficits in starting in 2010.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
As a non american talking about this is merely the view point from someone abroad.
I live in Europe, and as you may or may not know Europe has a much more developed welfare politics.
There are good things and bad things about this, depending on the country, culture, and general development.
I am not against welfare state, I mean, judging by the title of this article and being completely against war (“You shall not murder” was a commandment) I rather spend money in welfare than in war!!
Remember the words of another great man: “an eye for eye will make the whole world blind”
The point is welfare money has to be spent WISELY, and many times it’s not… I find Norway or Sweden very advanced countries with advanced welfares for example, specially Norway.
Also, it’s a bit confusing to me as to why in western world, the conservatives are more into religion than the liberals… I mean I understand THAT in an ideal or historical point of view but speaking strictly in economic policies I find the liberals or left wing economics more christian than the righ wing! Sharing is very christian, I think…
I think part of the answer lies on how we see the state… I think we must see the state as “us” not “them”. I’m not very fond of divisions. We are ONE humanity and we should stay united… but maybe I’m just an idealistic person. This would give a very interesting converstion… but it’s just a comment :)
LikeLike
There’s a few things that might help you understand the reason that conservatives would be Christians (and there are a great many liberals, by the way… polling shows that perception and reality don’t meet in the minds of those who see Christianity as a great conservative movement).
The first error I see is in quoting the commandment against murder. The hebrew word in view there is quite specific, and has to do with lying in wait to ambush and kill someone by suprise. The clearest way you can easily see that God does not forbid all types of killing, is that he endorses capital punishment, especially in the case of murder.
The whole argument behind “Just War” is much more complex than all that, and where it applies even more so, but it is definitely a mistake to think that all killing is murder. That’s unbiblical.
“Sharing is very christian, I think” is another big error, espeically when examining its relation to government welfare. You’re right to say that sharing is very Christian, but is the government exhorting taxes to inefficiently help the needy the same as sharing? This is where a big schism exists in the very fundamental outlook between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think of net-income as that which the government lets you keep. Conservatives think of net-income as that which the government doesn’t take. Let that sink in.
This is bound up in the next error that I want to intertwine: “I think we must see the state as “us” not “them”.” Jesus did not see it that way. When the pharisees tried to catch him up, either to offend the Roman law or to offend the zealots who were somewhat sympathetic to Him, they pressed Him about paying taxes. So He famously says, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God, that which is God’s.” As a *Christ*ian, the distinctions that Christ makes must be of great concern, and of great importance.
You see, when the tax man cometh, he takes the government’s portion. I give the portion that is due to God with a glad and joyous heart. Ostensibly, you may say that as long as it’s going to help the poor, there’s no difference, but of course you must understand that the differene is not merely semantic. The government is horribly inefficient with money. Christian charities are not. Aside from the graft and corruption that is endemic in government operation and their affiliates (Go go ACORN!), there is a question of salary. Christian charity is remarkably efficient in getting donated dollars to the needy rather than scrubbing out large amounts of it for themselves because it relies so heavily upon volunteer work.
So it is very important that I share, and I and my wife do share a significant portion of our income (do you? As an interesting aside, have you noticed the consistent difference in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives?), for those that are in need in our community. That’s not just an arms-distant sending of a check, but a rolling up of the sleeves and getting to work and getting along side real human beings, with real emotional and community needs. Not only do we provide what a welfare office provides, we provide much more, and at much lower cost. You will find as much human compassion at the local welfare office as you will at the DMV.
Jesus touched the leper…
On the negative side of the above positive proposition, the more that the government takes from me, the less the needy will recieve. The government will take my efficient dollars and convert them to inefficient ones. It will reduce my capacity to care for those around me, and replace that with reduced care and zero compassion.
Finally, while sharing is a very nice thing to accept from, and even expect from Christians, it was not the FIRST concern of Jesus. The spreading of the gospel was. That’s because God has a heart for the eternal salvation of man, a true deep and abiding love for everyone who lives. Feeding a lost man is actually part of the gospel, not seperate from it, but it is a shadow of the true thing. God feeds with bread, but the more important offer is to feed the soul. God loves with blankets for warmth, but the more important offer is to cover the sin. The one cannot be seperated from the other, from either the perspective of the secularist who would prefer the poor get fed without all that offensive Jesus stuff, or from the Christian who’d rather be nice and inoffensive.
I hope that helps. :)
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification! I see now how do you think.
“That’s not just an arms-distant sending of a check, but a rolling up of the sleeves and getting to work and getting along side real human beings, with real emotional and community needs. Not only do we provide what a welfare office provides, we provide much more, and at much lower cost. You will find as much human compassion at the local welfare office as you will at the DMV.” – I VERY MUCH agree with this! I hope the world was more like this!
You keep saying that the goverment is very inneficient with money… I know that there are many examples of that… but it really has to be that way?? Surely the state has the power to reach further, where us, simple people can’t. I’m longing for a fairer world and I can’t see a way to that in right or left politics nowadays… “graft and corruption” are things of the big business too!
LikeLike
““graft and corruption” are things of the big business too!”
And to be fair, they’re present in charities, even ostensibly Christian ones (GRRR!!!), but there is a question of volume… And power… and purpose… And it’s beside the point. Very few people have serious proposals to have for-profit businesses handle welfare issues. The government on the other hand, has a vested interest in controlling that segment, and even in making sure its existence is continued….
LikeLike