How the federal government and stimulus spending discourage work

A post by Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Excerpt:

Thanks to food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies, and other welfare benefits, many “poor” people have far more disposable income than self-supporting households earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year.  Veronique de Rugy points to a finding that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year” — even excluding benefits from Supplemental Security Income.  “America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system.”

[…]The analysis de Rugy cites actually understates the disincentives to work, because it ignored the fact that many households that are “poor” in terms of taxable income are not poor at all once you factor in tax-free income from non-governmental sources.  For example, child support is tax-free to the recipient family, no matter how huge the payments they receive (for example, a billionaire may pay several million dollars a year in child support to each of his ex-girlfriends with kids, leaving them in tax-free luxury, and under New York’s child support guidelines, everyone is supposed to pay at least 17 percent of their gross income in child support for just one child, regardless of how high that income is.  In Massachusetts, middle-income households pay 25 percent of gross income for just one kid — which is around a third of their after-tax income — under that state’s child support guidelines).

He also talks about how the federal government encourages child support agencies to yank more children away from their parents – they get more funding that way!

Brian Auten’s top 5 books for Christmas giving

From Apologetics 315.

Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of EverythingWho Made God? Completely readable – completely excellent. Actually, one of my favorite reads this year. I thought, I could give this to anyone and they would understand it, enjoy it, and be challenged by it. Full of wit, humor, and sharp thinking. This definitely makes it to the top of my list. (review here)

Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New AtheistsIs God Just a Human Invention? Another book with a question for a title – but questions are good, and this book tackles about 18 of them that are being asked the most these days. Written by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, with contributions from a ton of excellent specialists, this book is a phenomenal resource and doesn’t have to be read in any particular order. (an interview with the authors here)

Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and ScienceEvidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science is another book loaded with great content – 50 essays! – with contributions from a ton of top-notch apologists. A close competitor with the previously mentioned book that happens to be a great resource.

On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and PrecisionOn Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig is excellent for personal study or group studies. Weighty material that is clear, precise, and put together really well. I’d give this to Christian young people in high school and college who want to strengthen their apologetics foundations. (review here)

Pocket Handbook of Christian ApologeticsAnd finally, here’s the stocking stuffer of the bunch: Kreeft and Tacelli’s Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. The reason? Again, lots of material packed into a small book, organized and presented well.

My first choice is “Is God Just a Human Invention”, but I have not read “Who Made God?”, although I have it.

I’m not a big fan of Peter Kreeft’s book. I have never read anything by Kreeft that has the same evidential tone like the stuff that William Lane Craig writes. I am not a big fan of these G. K. Chesterton / C.S. Lewis / Phillip Yancey type people for apologetics. It’s just paper shields and foam swords – totally useless in battle. If you want real apologetics, you want experimental scientists, analytical philosophers and multi-lingual historians. You want guys like Mike Licona and William Lane Craig who have a lot of debating experience.

NOTE: Brian is giving away books to anyone who adds him on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribes to his newsletter.

Abortion, moral relativism, and the banality of evil

From Life Site News. This is strongly-worded and profound.

Excerpt:

The 20th century political philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil” when she observed the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was the very epitome of modern, banal, “nice” evil – an unthinking bureaucrat who, even to the end, could not seem to grasp the enormity of the evil in which he had taken part as a cog in the machine, a mere functionary.

Observers of the Nuremburg trials often commented that many of Eichmann’s fellow Nazis were to all outward appearances perfectly ordinary, bland, modern, well-educated, even cultured men: bureaucrats whose mass murders were committed from a distance with the stroke of a pen, and with the most prosaic and dispassionate of justifications.

We look back on this kind of man with the comfortable assurance that we are observing an undisputed monstrous evil, and are able to see it clearly. That man, those men, clearly ought to have known, and their facades of civilization are not enough to cover their shame. It is not enough, we can say, confident that the world will agree, to like Beethoven and Bach, to read Schiller and enjoy sports and be attentive husbands and fathers. We must know the difference between good and evil, or we are lost, we become those men, those civilized monsters.

I have seen myself, many times, the existence of this new, passionless “nice evil.” I have met it nearly every time I discuss abortion with a member of the “personally opposed but…” culture. These are the “perfectly nice” people who believe that it is perfectly justifiable to murder an innocent infant or helpless old person, and for no other reason than the momentary inconvenience he creates for another. Is there not something even more monstrous about this banal and complacent evil? Is this not the smiling, reasonable face of our worst dystopian nightmares?

Pro-life apologists like to compare our current abortion culture with that of slavery, one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated under (nominally) Christian princes.

In the centuries during which it was practiced, and whole economies were based on it, millions of people lived and prospered on its arrears. Until William Wilberforce forced the British public to look the realities of slavery in the face, it seems probable that the majority of them would, as the saying goes, not wish to own a slave themselves, but would not want to impose their personal beliefs on others. Buy and sell human beings, kidnap and torture and murder them, if your morality says you can. It is none of my business to tell you what to do.

Were these millions “moral monsters”? We are so sure of these evils now, but the question haunts us: why did they not know? And how are we different from them? Should these ordinary people not have instinctively known these evils?

Should they not all have done what Wilberforce finally did? Should there not have been a mass movement of decent, ordinary people against the atrocity of slavery? Why did Wilberforce’s crusade meet with such determined opposition, and take so long to accomplish?

Pro-abortionists de-humanize their victims and then kill them, just so that they can have recreational sex without consequences. This is the “great good” that pro-abortion radicals are fighting for – drunken hook-up sex and self-centered shacking up. They put amusement and entertainment above innocent human lives. Because they are strong, and unborn babies are weak. Their ethic is survival of the fittest. Pro-abortion is pro-selfishness. And they want you to celebrate and subsidize their selfishness, or else.