Question: Our debt continues to grow. Is there a Segula to reverse this trend?
Answer: Certainly. You should spend less than you bring in, and not rely on the miracle of overcoming a simple mathematical principle. The Tur wrote that one should limit his expenses. The Mishnah Berurah explains that this is a harsh criticism against those who are enticed to spend money on luxuries without seeing the consequences, which in the end lead to theft and disgrace. Biur Halachah chap. 529. One should plan well.
Was the Rav perhaps weighing in on the debt ceiling debate? If so, I would have to say halacha sides with the Tea Party and not Obamanomics, but that's a davar pashut anyway.
Correction: siDes with the Tea party.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, the problem isn't the Tea Party. It's the way multiple governments, both Republican and Democrat, have provided a full-service society for Americans while running a deficit to do that. Now that it's time to start some austerity people are outraged! How dare they take away my service X?!
fixed the typo - thanks
ReplyDeleteChochma ba'goyim ta'amin. There is a famous quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, from a work he published over 170 years ago:
ReplyDelete"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Other fine words:
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money. (the Iron Lady Thatcher)
In order to steal from the rich and give to the poor, you've got to have the rich. (James Collins)
I don't understand you all. Don't you think that governments have an obligation to effectuate the will of the people, and evidently the will of the people is to protect the weakest and helpless. This is a malchus shel chesed. This often results in overspending. Of course, sometimes this can result in foolish programs that perpetuate poverty and laziness. But the same can be said about the money we give the Yerushalmis that come to the door trying to raise money so their kids can have an apartment from which they can throw stones at Chayalim.
>>> and evidently the will of the people is to protect the weakest and helpless.
ReplyDeleteNo, that is the will of the ruling class.
I would suggest that the will of the people is to protect the weak and helpless. The will of the ruling class is to create a dependent class that can be manipulated by them. It's easier to control beggars.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the report of what compromises living in poverty: a car, a freezer besides a refrigerator, air-conditioning, television, cell phone... About what would be called middle-class in the UK.
Hesitant as I am to jump into the fray here -- but not sure I get the equation here between RAviner and the Tea Party. RAviner just said to spend less than you bring in. He does not seem to have a problem with balancing the equation by bringing in more revenue. So why is Obama's idea -- the idea of reducing the deficit by, in part at least, raising revenue -- at odds with this psak?
ReplyDeleteIf this government was so eager to protect the weak and helpless, it would not soak up so much taxpayer money to enrich its most favored employees, consultants and supporters. The most helpless include those robbed through taxation to pay off big unions and big businesses that then kick it back by contributing to political campaigns.
ReplyDeleteWho could have guessed that this blog has an audience of proto-marxists, libertarians, and anarchists, and strange combinations thereof.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, would Lakewood be as big as it is if all the government handouts and programs would suddenly disappear?
And would Orthodox parents be suffering so much with tuition payments for chinuch if they weren't also paying for the "schooling" of Mario and LeShawn? And for their single mothers? And for the health care and housing thereof?
ReplyDeleteAs an [extreme] example, to pay 20K in tuition for three children [a moderate amount] in NYC, a family has to make a GTI of at least 40K. Not to speak of property, sales, utility, and gasoline taxes. [This assumes that they are making enough money to cover housing, medical, food, etc., which puts them into the millionaire tax category. It's a little easier for the one-income homeless chareidi family.]
>>>So why is Obama's idea -- the idea of reducing the deficit by, in part at least, raising revenue -- at odds with this
ReplyDeleteBecause 1) Even if you tax the "wealthy" at 100% of their revenue, it would cover only a small fraction of the debt Obama is saddling the country with, so it's a silly idea that just makes for a talking point that does nothing to address the real problem. 2) It takes money to grow business, which is what creates jobs. Taking money out of the economy = destroying jobs and business, producing the opposite of the intended effect 3) Obama has increased the national debt fourfold. The amount generated in revenue through taxes cannot come close to covering the cost of the entitlement programs he has created.
>>>After all, would Lakewood be as big as it is if all the government handouts and programs would suddenly disappear
Yigita kapecha ki tochal... Isn't it a chilul Hashem for bnei Torah to live on the public dole like welfare queens in some other neighborhoods?
I'm hesitant to get into an economic/political debate because neither of the topics interest me very much and I am not a hard core democrat or republican -- but just on the local points you raised:
ReplyDelete1) It is a fallacy to think all of the wealth of the uber-wealthy that is not taxed is going back into the economy. What percentage of it is and isnt, you can argue but it is a significant number.
2) Government spending on the other hand goes 100% back into the economy (the government is not saving). Now you can argue it is spent in an inefficient manner, the money is the wrong places, etc etc, but on either side of the equation (raising taxes or cutting spending) you are taking money out of the economy one way and potentially putting it back in another.
3) You have to look at how much of the debt are a result of the stimulus packages put into place by the Bush adminsitration and the Bush tax cuts (which the nonpartisan CBO maintains accounts for a good part of that deficit). The reason the Bush tax cuts were designed to expire over 10 years is because it created too many budget problems on the revenue side to leave them there forever. If tax cuts really leave the money in the economy and move things so well, the revenue should have picked up so much that we wouldn't be having this problem. But the answer is, it doesnt always work that way.
I'm neither economist nor politician and don't have any answers (let alone easy answers) to the economic situation which is our world today (if I did, I would have a different day job). And I'm not saying Obama is right with all of his policies. But for someone as thoughtful, analytical and nuanced as you are, I'm surprised you take one side of this debate hook, line and sinker without considering that the emes is probably somewhere in the middle.
Of course not all the money earned by the wealthy goes back into the economy. But a policy that respects the rights of citizens to keep what they earn and use it as they see fit does far more to encourage their reinvestment in business expansion than a policy of seizing their profits for the sake of advancing some agenda smiled upon by others. The left takes for granted the right of government to burden me and take what's mine to advance it's cause, and those of us who are libertarians and conservatives fundamentally disagree -- except for narrow cases (e.g. national defense), what's mine is mine and leave me alone.
ReplyDeleteThe debt when Bush left office was over 700 billion -- a huge number, a number for which Bush was criticized by many conservatives. Debt under Obamam - 1.85 trillion. Quite a difference. Where does the country get over a trillion dollars (and rising, esp. given that the full cost of Obamacase hasn't been seen yet) to cover this from? And where are the benefits?
ReplyDeleteHow anyone can support the policies of Obama is beyond me. I've read Joesph Stiglitz's book (problem with the bailout: we didn't spend enough!) and once in awhile Krugman and remain unconvinced that these people have a clue what they are talking about.
Chaim said:
ReplyDeleteThe left takes for granted the right of government to burden me and take what's mine to advance it's cause, and those of us who are libertarians and conservatives fundamentally disagree -- except for narrow cases (e.g. national defense), what's mine is mine and leave me alone.
What's mine is mine is actually a concept that goes against Torah.
We are just conduits for G-D's efforts in this world. What He gives us is from His bank account and we, acting as His agents are responsible to use his funds wisely.
Just because G-D blesses someone with a $400,000 salary doesn't mean that one should live a $400,000 lifestyle.
On the other hand, if paying taxes into the US treasury is helping to support a crooked economy, maybe it is time for all Jews to come home to G-D's country.
Currently Israel is experiencing one of the strongest economies in the world, almost full employment and still able to have any number of social care programs. One doesn't need thousands of dollars for a solid Jewish education.
Could be as conduits of G-D's money, you all need to come home and stop bellyaching about Obummer.
Join us for the Chag this Tisha B'Av.
Hillel Levin
Shiloh
There is a moral obligation to be charitable - one which a libertarian would agree with, like anyone else. There is no legal right in halacha to seize charity by force -- see Tos B"B 8b.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp
ReplyDelete