A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

I think you need to reread your resolution.



EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.

So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.




Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?

Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.

Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.

No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.

The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us. But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another. Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system. There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other. It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.

So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will be expected to pay for.

good example! The highway system! Lets use that.


Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.

The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.

So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.

Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.

No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers. It provided the funds and laid out the map. It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go. It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be. A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.

But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government. There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving. It is all relative.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reviting the resolution, here is the exact wording:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

I think it is pretty specific that the purpose is to prohibit the federal government from targeting any group for a benefit without making it available to everybody.

 

[Vidi]

No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.

The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us. But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another. Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system. There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other. It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.

So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will be expected to pay for.

good example! The highway system! Lets use that.


Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.

The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.

So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.

Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.

No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers. It provided the funds and laid out the map. It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go. It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be. A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.

But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government. There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving. It is all relative.

Im sorry but the data disagrees with you.

The Effects of Road Infrastructure on Property Value | eHow.com

Businesses often cluster around highway exits that carry traffic off and onto a major freeway. The highway interchange provides convenient access to the area, which promotes growth. Home builders typically advertise close proximity to major highway exits as selling points.

Large highways can serve as barriers to divide regions, economically. Robert Caro, author of "The Power Broker," cites Robert Moses' design of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the direct cause for uprooting stable communities and isolating the South Bronx as a notorious inner-city ghetto from the rest of New York City.

Property values fall when new roads are built that redirect traffic away from an area. For example, the interstate highway system has led to the decline of small towns that are away from the interstate. Traffic is more likely to use the main highway, than to patronize businesses along what have now become back roads. In fact, large sections of historic Route 66 are now abandoned because of the nation's interstate highway build-out.


History of the Interstate Highway System – Maps, resources, freight companies, cdl trucking jobs, truck driving schools | TruckersReport.com

While the interstate highway system has had a positive impact on the ability of travelers and businesses to get from one point to another, it’s not all positive. The interstate system has seen the decline in use of secondary highways which go through towns. The decline in usage has meant that less people go through the towns, and businesses have folded.



Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.

 

[Charles_Main]

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly

It is clearly not being Managed Correctly, and we have ample evidence that it is unwise at best to expect the Government to be able to Manage anything correctly.

 

[Foxfyre]

good example! The highway system! Lets use that.


Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.

The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.

So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.

Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.

No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers. It provided the funds and laid out the map. It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go. It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be. A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.

But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government. There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving. It is all relative.

Im sorry but the data disagrees with you.

The Effects of Road Infrastructure on Property Value | eHow.com

Businesses often cluster around highway exits that carry traffic off and onto a major freeway. The highway interchange provides convenient access to the area, which promotes growth. Home builders typically advertise close proximity to major highway exits as selling points.

Large highways can serve as barriers to divide regions, economically. Robert Caro, author of "The Power Broker," cites Robert Moses' design of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the direct cause for uprooting stable communities and isolating the South Bronx as a notorious inner-city ghetto from the rest of New York City.

Property values fall when new roads are built that redirect traffic away from an area. For example, the interstate highway system has led to the decline of small towns that are away from the interstate. Traffic is more likely to use the main highway, than to patronize businesses along what have now become back roads. In fact, large sections of historic Route 66 are now abandoned because of the nation's interstate highway build-out.


History of the Interstate Highway System – Maps, resources, freight companies, cdl trucking jobs, truck driving schools | TruckersReport.com

While the interstate highway system has had a positive impact on the ability of travelers and businesses to get from one point to another, it’s not all positive. The interstate system has seen the decline in use of secondary highways which go through towns. The decline in usage has meant that less people go through the towns, and businesses have folded.



Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.

No. The resolution does not say at any level. It specifically refers to the federal government and specifically says that it does not apply to state and local governments.

There is anecdotal evidence to support pretty much any point of view anybody wants to support. Certainly the history of the railroad always helped create booms and busts, with whole towns picking up lock stock and barrel to move to the railroad when it didn't come to them.

So I don't deny that the Interstate Highway system probably did put some businesses out of business even as it provided an anchor for thousands of businesses to be created. The automobile also put a lot of wagon and buggy makers out of business and commercial airlines have put numerous bus companies out of business and reduced the cross country bus system to a small fraction of what it once was.

But the principle remains the same. The Interstate Highway system was a completely non discriminatory project that promoted the general welfare and did not set out to benefit favored constituencies.

 

[Vidi]

No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers. It provided the funds and laid out the map. It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go. It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be. A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.

But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government. There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving. It is all relative.

Im sorry but the data disagrees with you.

The Effects of Road Infrastructure on Property Value | eHow.com

Businesses often cluster around highway exits that carry traffic off and onto a major freeway. The highway interchange provides convenient access to the area, which promotes growth. Home builders typically advertise close proximity to major highway exits as selling points.

Large highways can serve as barriers to divide regions, economically. Robert Caro, author of "The Power Broker," cites Robert Moses' design of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the direct cause for uprooting stable communities and isolating the South Bronx as a notorious inner-city ghetto from the rest of New York City.

Property values fall when new roads are built that redirect traffic away from an area. For example, the interstate highway system has led to the decline of small towns that are away from the interstate. Traffic is more likely to use the main highway, than to patronize businesses along what have now become back roads. In fact, large sections of historic Route 66 are now abandoned because of the nation's interstate highway build-out.


History of the Interstate Highway System – Maps, resources, freight companies, cdl trucking jobs, truck driving schools | TruckersReport.com

While the interstate highway system has had a positive impact on the ability of travelers and businesses to get from one point to another, it’s not all positive. The interstate system has seen the decline in use of secondary highways which go through towns. The decline in usage has meant that less people go through the towns, and businesses have folded.



Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.

No. The resolution does not say at any level. It specifically refers to the federal government and specifically says that it does not apply to state and local governments.

There is anecdotal evidence to support pretty much any point of view anybody wants to support. Certainly the history of the railroad always helped create booms and busts, with whole towns picking up lock stock and barrel to move to the railroad when it didn't come to them.

So I don't deny that the Interstate Highway system probably did put some businesses out of business even as it provided an anchor for thousands of businesses to be created. The automobile also put a lot of wagon and buggy makers out of business and commercial airlines have put numerous bus companies out of business and reduced the cross country bus system to a small fraction of what it once was.

But the principle remains the same. The Interstate Highway system was a completely non discriminatory project that promoted the general welfare and did not set out to benefit favored constituencies.

Fox,

prohibit the federal government at any level

Your words, not mine.

And as I stated, as FEDERAL funds for the interstate highway would be given to the States for a specific purpose, your resolution AS WORDED would have to apply and therefore, prohibit the interstate highway system from being built as it would provide direct ebenefit to some while not being able to provide it for others.




on a side note, I just want to say publicly, thank you for this thread and more importantly for your respectful dissent and debate. I am enjoying the hell out of myself and love you for it.

 

[JDzBrain]

Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.

Ok...skipping past all the rest of this. This ONE THING is at the root of ALL our problems in this country.

Those are called unfunded or partially funded mandated spending programs Vidi. Sending funds to states for specific purposes is EXACTLY what Obamacare does and then drops the hammer on the state if they don't do it the way Obamacare specifies. Or it DID until the Supreme Court ruled that portion of it UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Foxy is right. This taking of a state's wealth and sending a SMALL portion of seed funding back to the state with a mandate to spend more has GOT TO END. Medicaid, the Education Department, NRCS, Food Stamps, Welfare and on and on and on.

It is TIME that we stopped this endless string of protected classes and federally mandated spending sprees designed to buy votes!

It's total insanity an it's KILLING OUR WAY OF LIFE!

This country was founded on EQUAL. Equal protections under the law, all men created equal, equal opportunity to succeed or fail of our own accord...equal. NOT fair, not punitive...equal.

 

[Vidi]

Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.

Ok...skipping past all the rest of this. This ONE THING is at the root of ALL our problems in this country.

Those are called unfunded or partially funded mandated spending programs Vidi. Sending funds to states for specific purposes is EXACTLY what Obamacare does and then drops the hammer on the state if they don't do it the way Obamacare specifies. Or it DID until the Supreme Court ruled that portion of it UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Foxy is right. This taking of a state's wealth and sending a SMALL portion of seed funding back to the state with a mandate to spend more has GOT TO END. Medicaid, the Education Department, NRCS, Food Stamps, Welfare and on and on and on.

It is TIME that we stopped this endless string of protected classes and federally mandated spending sprees designed to buy votes!

It's total insanity an it's KILLING OUR WAY OF LIFE!

This country was founded on EQUAL. Equal protections under the law, all men created equal, equal opportunity to succeed or fail of our own accord...equal. NOT fair, not punitive...equal.

Im not opposed to the 14th amendment. In fact, Ive labeled Fox's resolution redundant for that very reason. Equal protection is already a part of the Constitution.

Her resolution however goes further than the 14th and requires that any benefit to one group be given to all groups. Its too broadly worded , too open to interpetation and therefore would lead to a complete sieze of the system. Can you just imagine the workload that would be placed on the Judicial system dealing with the lawsuits this resolution would generate?

On the other hand, if strictly adhered to, it would lead directly to communism as that is the only form of government in which all benefits are gievn "equally" ( on paper, communism has never worked that way in practice which is why it will always fail. )

 

[IGetItAlready]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?

 

[Foxfyre]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?

Now THAT is an interesting observation. Please expland on it?

 

[JDzBrain]

Im not opposed to the 14th amendment. In fact, Ive labeled Fox's resolution redundant for that very reason. Equal protection is already a part of the Constitution.

Her resolution however goes further than the 14th and requires that any benefit to one group be given to all groups. Its too broadly worded , too open to interpetation and therefore would lead to a complete sieze of the system. Can you just imagine the workload that would be placed on the Judicial system dealing with the lawsuits this resolution would generate?

On the other hand, if strictly adhered to, it would lead directly to communism as that is the only form of government in which all benefits are gievn "equally" ( on paper, communism has never worked that way in practice which is why it will always fail. )

No, no...see, I think you are missing the inherently rigid pragmatic nature of the political animal. This would take away the incentive for pandering.

If they CAN'T fund a targeted program that would benefit a select sector, but instead would be FORCED to spread it EQUALLY across the board...they wouldn't do it at ALL. What would be the point?

We all know that the ONLY reason they do 99% of this crap is to further their own interest. If it doesn't do that...they will not do it!

Do you really think there is a chance in France that these jackwagons would have voted to subsidize corn and mandate ethanol made from it be used if they weren't getting kickbacks in the form of donations and votes. That's just not the way politics work!

By the way, I AM opposed to the 14th amendment. Talk about redundant AND destructive!

But that's for another discussion. ;~)

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree with the op entirely. I would love to see something like this implemented along with ending the concept of block grants to the state.

To vidi - your argument really does not make any sense. Nothing benefits everyone equally in about but the heart of what I get from fox's op is that individual sub groups cannot be targeted for redistribution efforts. Perhaps the specific wording is the problem. Why dont you suggest better wording then? Or do you disagree with e entire sentiment. Do you not agree that the federal government should cease pandering entirely but should be able to provide general services such as police, fire protections and roads that are available to ALL even if the benefits of such are not equal?

 

[dblack]

I agree we didnt create government to maintain a static environment. We created government to create a stable enviorment. Government has NO OTHER PURPOSE than that.

Every law, every regulation, every amendment to the Constitution should be passed ONLY to promote stability.

Unneccesary and foolish risk promotes instability that places the innocent at risk though no fault of their own.

Once again, we disagree on the fundamentals. We need government to protect our rights, to protect our freedom to create the kind of world we want to live in, not to tell us what that world must be. I don't want a government that 'runs' the country like some kind of communal corporation. Government should enforce laws that prohibit coercion and otherwise stay out of the way, letting us contribute to the economy, the society, the culture, as we see fit.

It's really the difference between a government that acts as a referee and one that acts as a manager.

 

[saveliberty]

First, I think its sad that Iowa doesn't have an Awesomeville.

It seems that the proclamation section regarding equal benefit might be reframed to state that revenue from the people in a given area be offset by some reasonable reinvestment in that area from the federal government.

The areas need to be large enough that it generates roughly equal amounts of revenue for the feds. It also needs to be small enough that indivdual states are not forced to share with another state.

 

[IGetItAlready]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?

Now THAT is an interesting observation. Please expland on it?

Well, it appears you're trying to reduce the number of new federal handouts by setting the bar a little higher in requiring congress to "prove" that any new proposals would benefit the nation as a whole. I don't see creating a false image of universal benefit as such a difficult thing to do for a group of people, many of whom seem to have majored more in human manipulation and rhetoric than in civics and poly-sci.
Therefore, I can envision your proclamation presenting a roadblock to new regs at first but once a means by which to bypass or falsely satisfy the condition is found we'd actually have new regulations that virtually everyone would "qualify" for.
Human nature being what it is, qualification would lead many who are not even in need to cash in on the entitlement, thereby placing a bigger burden on the tax payer, leading to a "necessity" for incessantly increased tax revenue, leading to increased hardship and poverty, leading to the "necessity" for subsequent handouts, each of which would likely be easier to deem "necessary", leading to the tax payer's inability to cover the cost of sustaining entitlements, leading eventually to total economic collapse and the Cloward-Piven strategist's holy grail of offering proof that the capitalist system does not work and that a new system is necessary.

...Am I over thinking this?

 

[Foxfyre]

I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?

Now THAT is an interesting observation. Please expland on it?

Well, it appears you're trying to reduce the number of new federal handouts by setting the bar a little higher in requiring congress to "prove" that any new proposals would benefit the nation as a whole. I don't see creating a false image of universal benefit as such a difficult thing to do for a group of people, many of whom seem to have majored more in human manipulation and rhetoric than in civics and poly-sci.
Therefore, I can envision your proclamation presenting a roadblock to new regs at first but once a means by which to bypass or falsely satisfy the condition is found we'd actually have new regulations that virtually everyone would "qualify" for.
Human nature being what it is, qualification would lead many who are not even in need to cash in on the entitlement, thereby placing a bigger burden on the tax payer, leading to a "necessity" for incessantly increased tax revenue, leading to increased hardship and poverty, leading to the "necessity" for subsequent handouts, each of which would likely be easier to deem "necessary", leading to the tax payer's inability to cover the cost of sustaining entitlements, leading eventually to total economic collapse and the Cloward-Piven strategist's holy grail of offering proof that the capitalist system does not work and that a new system is necessary.

...Am I over thinking this?

Over thinking? I don't think so. I do appreciate your putting some thought into it though.

If you've ever seen the movie "Dave", there was one scene in which the lead character was addressing the press corps and was expressing that sometimes there are so many problems that it just becomes one big bunch of noise and nobody even really tries to address it any more. That's a pure paraphrase but that was the gist of it.

Well that's the way it is in America now too. We send people to Congress to represent us, but with very few exceptions, they quickly discover that the way to get along is to go along, and to go along means do what you have to do to help each other increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by being elected again and again. So that becomes their focus and purpose to be there. They no longer even try to fix any problems because it is the problems that keep them in power.

The purpose of the resolution is to take all of that out of the equation. If our elected leaders are denied ability to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by virtue of problems existing and therefore they have no incentive to actually do the jobs we expect them to do, then they will be forced to do the jobs we expect them to do. When they are unable to enrich themselves inthe process, we will again elect public servants instead of self serving career politicians to high office.

You do that by denying them the ability of to use our money to buy influence and votes.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion of how the RESOLVED part of the resolution could be written to deny government charity (i.e. buying votes)without muddying the waters otherwise?

 

[saveliberty]

Our community doesn't use tax dollars to support charities as a rule. What they have done is say, Domestic Harmony actually saves tax dollars that would have been spent in other government services.

 

[Vidi]

Im not opposed to the 14th amendment. In fact, Ive labeled Fox's resolution redundant for that very reason. Equal protection is already a part of the Constitution.

Her resolution however goes further than the 14th and requires that any benefit to one group be given to all groups. Its too broadly worded , too open to interpetation and therefore would lead to a complete sieze of the system. Can you just imagine the workload that would be placed on the Judicial system dealing with the lawsuits this resolution would generate?

On the other hand, if strictly adhered to, it would lead directly to communism as that is the only form of government in which all benefits are gievn "equally" ( on paper, communism has never worked that way in practice which is why it will always fail. )

No, no...see, I think you are missing the inherently rigid pragmatic nature of the political animal. This would take away the incentive for pandering.

If they CAN'T fund a targeted program that would benefit a select sector, but instead would be FORCED to spread it EQUALLY across the board...they wouldn't do it at ALL. What would be the point?

We all know that the ONLY reason they do 99% of this crap is to further their own interest. If it doesn't do that...they will not do it!

Do you really think there is a chance in France that these jackwagons would have voted to subsidize corn and mandate ethanol made from it be used if they weren't getting kickbacks in the form of donations and votes. That's just not the way politics work!

By the way, I AM opposed to the 14th amendment. Talk about redundant AND destructive!

But that's for another discussion. ;~)

I see your point on pandering but it would also force the system to seize as no legislation could be passed because all legislation is choosing a winner and a loser.

That's the nature of government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you sure, Save? I was just now looking at a newsletter from the local chapter of Catholic Charities stating that 85% of their funding came from the government. I was amazed and a little horrified, actually, but intend to research that further. If from state and local government, possibly okay. But from the federal government? No way could I justify that.