Tag Archives: Social Programs

Thomas Sowell explains why too much compassion is a bad thing

Here is something you can forward to all of your progressive friends! It clearly explains what’s wrong with too much moral permissiveness and compassion. When you subsidize certain decisions, you get more of those decisions, when you tax certain decisions, you get less of them.

Excerpt:

Since the average American never took out a mortgage loan as big as seven hundred grand– for the very good reason that he could not afford it– why should he be forced as a taxpayer to subsidize someone else who apparently couldn’t afford it either, but who got in over his head anyway?

Why should taxpayers who live in apartments, perhaps because they did not feel that they could afford to buy a house, be forced to subsidize other people who could not afford to buy a house, but who went ahead and bought one anyway?

And what about saving for a rainy day?

Who hasn’t been out of work at some time or other, or had an illness or accident that created unexpected expenses? The old and trite notion of “saving for a rainy day” is old and trite precisely because this has been a common experience for a very long time.

What is new is the current notion of indulging people who refused to save for a rainy day or to live within their means. In politics, it is called “compassion”– which comes in both the standard liberal version and “compassionate conservatism.”

The article concludes with this:

Even in an era of much-ballyhooed “change,” the government cannot eliminate sadness. What it can do is transfer that sadness from those who made risky and unwise decisions to the taxpayers who had nothing to do with their decisions.

Worse, the subsidizing of bad decisions destroys one of the most effective sources of better decisions– namely, paying the consequences of bad decisions.

I would just encourage you to try to communicate with your neighbors who may not have thought clearly about “the forgotten man”, the taxpayer who works hard, plays by the rules and then is stuck with the bill for the compassion of well-meaning socialists.

In one of my more popular posts, I explained how the compassion of socialist democrats got us into this financial crisis by forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them.

Assessing the current state of the debate on abortion

Here is a GREAT discussion between Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute. The discussion starts at time 55:50 of the podcast. Klusendorf and especially Koukl are on fire in this podcast! Do not miss this podcast.

Topics include:

  • How do left-leaning Christians justify their pro-abortion voting?
  • What kills more people: unintended civilian casualties in war or deliberate killing of unborn babies? Are these two kinds of death morally equivalent?
  • Have Obama’s policies on abortion reduced or increased abortions?
  • Did the rate of abortion decline under Clinton and increase under Bush?
  • What policies really do reduce the number of abortions, and who supports those policies?
  • Should Christian medical personnel be forced to perform abortions against their consciences?
  • What are the root causes of abortion, and should we be addressing them by government-enforced wealth redistribution (social programs), instead of by legislation?
  • What is the difference between embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and adult stem cell research (ASCR)?

As well, Klusendorf alludes to some research by Michael J. New at the Heritage Foundation about the policies that reduce abortions. You can read about it here in National Review. The supporting research is here.

I have blogged about some of these topics before, such as: stem cell research, a simple case for defending the unborn, right of conscience for health care workers, and about Representative Michele Bachmann’s opposition to FOCA and ESCR.

Scott Klusendorf makes the pro-life case on audio, here.

UPDATE: Doug Groothuis has a short, non-sectarian argument against abortion here.