The Government is NOT a Charity

[Annie]

What do you think the citizenry will do when they find pork and earmarks?

Perchance get as upset as those of us that have tried digging this stuff up from reading stupid Congressional sites and coverage like The Hill?

 

[Annie]

Perchance get as upset as those of us that have tried digging this stuff up from reading stupid Congressional sites and coverage like The Hill?

Said better:

http://instapundit.com/archives/032545.php

September 13, 2006

porkbustersnewsm.jpgPORKBUSTERS UPDATE: The earmark reform legislation has passed the House (identical legislation was already passed in the Senate) so it's now heading to the President's desk. Here's an email from the Majority Whip's office:

WASHINGTON---Legislation championed by House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (Va.) to increase budget accountability and transparency by establishing a public database to track federal grants and contracts passed the House tonight by voice vote. . . .

The federal government awards approximately $300 billion in grants to roughly 30,000 different organizations annually. Each year, roughly one million contracts exceed the $25,000 reporting threshold. The Blunt-Davis bill will ensure that those expenditures are readily accessible to the media, the public, and Members of Congress.


The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act will:

Eliminate Wasteful Spending by empowering everyone with access to the internet to begin reviewing federal grants and other forms of taxpayer assistance for waste, fraud, and abuse;

Ensure Compliance with Federal Law by requiring grantees to also disclose their subgrantees, and

Ensure Compliance with Lobbying Restrictions by identifying entities receiving federal grants that would be subject to lobbying restrictions in existing law.

With House passage of S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and the enrollment correction containing the House-Senate compromise agreement, the final bill will now go to the president for his signature.

It's not the end of the fight against pork, but it's certainly a very significant step. Congratulations to everyone involved!
posted at 08:57 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[insein]

Jesus would be into Heavy Metal. He's got the head banger hair. Plus it'd be what you least expect.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A lot of what you cite comes under the "general welfare" clause.

If your statement is in defense of social programs, it has one fatal flaw. MOST, if not all, of those social programs DO NOT promote the GENERAL welfare, but rather the welfare of certain special groups.

You realize that the libs in california are trying to pass legislation that will fund college tuition for illegal aliens. Thats fucking bizzare. The govt funding a criminal instead of putting him in prison or deporting him.?

Not to mention, they are taking my money at the threat of physical violence and against my will and paying for those educations, when I cant even afford to send my own kids to college. Income tax is a crime, and immoral.

 

[CSM]

If your statement is in defense of social programs, it has one fatal flaw. MOST, if not all, of those social programs DO NOT promote the GENERAL welfare, but rather the welfare of certain special groups.

You realize that the libs in california are trying to pass legislation that will fund college tuition for illegal aliens. Thats fucking bizzare. The govt funding a criminal instead of putting him in prison or deporting him.?

Not to mention, they are taking my money at the threat of physical violence and against my will and paying for those educations, when I cant even afford to send my own kids to college. Income tax is a crime, and immoral.

Easy there fella. I was merely pointing out the excuse some use to justify social programs.

 

[ErikViking]

Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would do. What music would he listen to for example? Would he listen to rap because it's the music of the downtrodden or would he avoid it because it sucks? Would he eat at McDonald's because that's where his followers eat or would he eat good food instead. This WWJD thing has endless permutations. :wank: :bj2:

I think he would look around. Shake his head and look a bit sad. Then he would start to help the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, the drug abusers, the people without faith and he wouldn't care for a second about us. We have it all, and we see suffering and we don't fix it. I am not ready to give everything up to help people I don't know, I love my earthly posessions too much.
My guess is that Jesus wouldn't listen to music at all. He wouldn't eat good food either. He would walk with the ones we hardly stand seeing in the streets.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Easy there fella. I was merely pointing out the excuse some use to justify social programs.

Yea, I figured you were playing the devils advocate, thats why I put the disclaimer in there.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think he would look around. Shake his head and look a bit sad. Then he would start to help the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, the drug abusers, the people without faith and he wouldn't care for a second about us. We have it all, and we see suffering and we don't fix it. I am not ready to give everything up to help people I don't know, I love my earthly posessions too much.
My guess is that Jesus wouldn't listen to music at all. He wouldn't eat good food either. He would walk with the ones we hardly stand seeing in the streets.

WWJD? It would partly depend on where he was. In the USA, I dont think he would be so quick to help the poor, because jobs and education and advancement are available to everyone. My wife is from the Philippines, and a visit or two there and you understand real poverty, and what it really means to not be able to find a job. She was astonished when she saw so many classified ads for jobs.
Now if He was in India, he certainly would tend to the poor.
As for his long hair, people always forget, that was the norm. And he would dress sloppy or super casual, his attire was simple, but very acceptable for the era he lived in.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from keeping a standing army for more than two years. (Section 8, Article 1) Things change Bilbo. Grow a heart, heed your Christian ideals and realize that social programs are good for the well-being of our nation because they take care of the frail, the infirm and the poverty-ridden. Quit being so selfish. WWJD?

I don't recall Jesus ever telling people to put responsibility for helping their fellow men upon Caesar. Social programs are terrible for the well-being of the poor--that's why we've seen social ills explode ever since LBJ's great society programs were put into place. They're especially bad when you're talking about putting people's lives in the hands of ignorant bureaucrats a thousand miles away. Private charity is a much better idea and did a much better job--for reams of specific examples, check out a book titled The Tradgedy of American Compassion. Giving charity functions to the government has only served to crowd out available funds (and percieved need) for private charities.

 

[ErikViking]

WWJD? It would partly depend on where he was. In the USA, I dont think he would be so quick to help the poor, because jobs and education and advancement are available to everyone. My wife is from the Philippines, and a visit or two there and you understand real poverty, and what it really means to not be able to find a job. She was astonished when she saw so many classified ads for jobs.
Now if He was in India, he certainly would tend to the poor.
As for his long hair, people always forget, that was the norm. And he would dress sloppy or super casual, his attire was simple, but very acceptable for the era he lived in.

I guess it is a question of what you believe in. I believe: The Bible is trying to tell us about a love way beoynd availability and chances. I can't say I am the man to live up to it, but I think He would like me to to for the least what I would do for Him. I judge people for what they are or have become but I don't think He would. The Bilble talks about an endless love - hard to comprehend. The junkie who blew all his chances is still one of his children, - not to abandoned.

 

[roadhouse158]

You know..I get pissed off too about seing peole on welfare that are capable of working, and my tax money being used for ridiculous social programs. As I sit here and think about it however, I think about the middle east. Why is there so much violence there all the time. Africa too. It's because you have the "haves and the haves not". Don't get too Conservative or you will create a major problem here. The poor, if they knew they had no chance whatsoever would eventually be forced to take up arms. They do however know that they have a chance. They are just lazy for the most part and want to bitch. Not 100% of them. But a lot of them. The biggest difference between us and our enemies is that we do take care of the less fortunate. It's inhuman not to. If it was left up to us today, I almost believe the only ones that give to charities now would be the only ones giving to charities if there were no social programs. People want to have money. I guess it's natural. You can't have money if your giving it away. That's the way it's looked at today.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You know..I get pissed off too about seing peole on welfare that are capable of working, and my tax money being used for ridiculous social programs. As I sit here and think about it however, I think about the middle east. Why is there so much violence there all the time. Africa too. It's because you have the "haves and the haves not". Don't get too Conservative or you will create a major problem here. The poor, if they knew they had no chance whatsoever would eventually be forced to take up arms. They do however know that they have a chance. They are just lazy for the most part and want to bitch. Not 100% of them. But a lot of them. The biggest difference between us and our enemies is that we do take care of the less fortunate. It's inhuman not to. If it was left up to us today, I almost believe the only ones that give to charities now would be the only ones giving to charities if there were no social programs. People want to have money. I guess it's natural. You can't have money if your giving it away. That's the way it's looked at today.

So, all the violence precipitated by OBL is because he is a have not?

Also, its a statistical fact, when peoples taxes get lowered, charitable giving goes up.

We took care of our poor for almost two hundred years without all the social welfare programs of today, and thats when our country wasnt nearly as rich as it is today, INCLUDING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, nobody starved to death for a lack of food, there were always soup kitchens and charities giving food to anyone who really needed it.

 

[Kagom]

Welfare needs reform. We need to actually check on the people who get Welfare money without giving any hint as to when we're coming to check in on them. Keep 'em on their toes and if we find they're squandering the money when they should be out trying to get a job, take it away.

Million Dollar Baby showed us a clear image of the mentality of some Welfare recipients quite well.

 

[roadhouse158]

Quote:So, all the violence precipitated by OBL is because he is a have not?:

Oh no....OBL is not a have not. You hit the nail on the head...He has a whole lot of money. This is also why he wasn't on one of the planes on 9/11. This is also why he hasn't strapped a bomb to himself. He preaches to the poor in the Middle East about Muhhammed. It inspires them to commit these acts cause they have nothing on Earth. What do they have to lose? At least they can act for their God and be rewarded in heaven. Bin Laden himself doesn't believe his own teaching to Muslims I think. I think the man just wants to rule the earth. I honestly believe that. He doesn't care about the American presence in the Middle East. Only because it keeps him from being a leader. Other than that, he hates damn near everyone. Bombing in London, Egypt, Jordan. To name a few. He's a quack. I am sure he and Charles Manson would get along real good.

 

[musicman]

If it was left up to us today, I almost believe the only ones that give to charities now would be the only ones giving to charities if there were no social programs. People want to have money. I guess it's natural. You can't have money if your giving it away. That's the way it's looked at today.

No - you're making the mistake of assuming that human behavior is fixed, rather than altered by changing circumstances. As LuvRPgrl pointed out, Americans have always been a generous people, even during the worst of times. But, when the government sets itself up as the agent of confiscation and redistribution - according to ITS notions of who is and isn't needy and deserving - it causes two things to happen. First, people become understandably resentful. Second, and more to the point, we have less money to give.

BTW, welcome to the board!

 

[roadhouse158]

Thanks musicman

 

[Little-Acorn]

A lot of what you cite comes under the "general welfare" clause.

That's true, but probably not in the way you were hoping. In fact, the "general welfare" clause PROHIBITS most of those things.

The clause actually is part of a sentence in the Constitution, which says that the Fed can collect taxes for certain purposes, including paying debts and providing for the Defense and the general welfare of the country. "General Welfare" had a specific meaning when the Constitution was written, and that's the meaning the clause must be granted.

"General Welfare" meant the welfare of the country as a whole - as opposed to the benefit of only part of it, or of special interest groups. In fact, the "welfare clause" is a restriction on the Federal government. It says that, outside of programs specifically named in the Constitution (Defense, courts etc.) the Fed can spend money only in ways that benefit everyone in the country equally. Any other government spending must be left to the states and lower governments to do.

In fact, the Fed is prohibited from spending money on schools, hospitals, unemployment insurance, retirement funds, etc. The government has been gradually (and illegally) pushing its way into more and more of those over the years, to the point where more than 3/4 of the Federal budget is spent on programs forbidden by the Constitution - the 10th amendment, the welfare clause, and other parts. They do it in part by twisting the welfare clause in the same way you just tried to. The fact that it's being done, doesn't make it legal. People get murdered every day, too. Does that make murder legal?

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Welfare as we know it, is a socialistic wealth redistribution program, thanks LBJ!

Welfare needs reform. We need to actually check on the people who get Welfare money without giving any hint as to when we're coming to check in on them. Keep 'em on their toes and if we find they're squandering the money when they should be out trying to get a job, take it away.

Million Dollar Baby showed us a clear image of the mentality of some Welfare recipients quite well.

Up here, they're throwing alot of these welfare reform programs against the wall to see what sticks. Mixed results so far:

OLYMPIA — Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Mike McGavick on Wednesday proposed mandatory substance-abuse screening for welfare recipients with children.

In a speech to the Pasco-Kennewick Rotary, the former Senate aide and Safeco Insurance CEO proposed a "three-strike" requirement that could lead to mandatory drug-abuse testing and treatment, reduction of direct cash benefits and, in some cases, loss of parental rights.

"Children from the homes of families on welfare have it hard already," he said in a prepared text released by his campaign. "When their parent or guardian is also an abuser of illegal drugs, success for those children is a lot harder. Right now, Washington, D.C., Republicans and Democrats, turn a blind eye to this problem.

"This proposal says, 'We're going to test and then mandate treatment to help the adults kick their addiction for the sake of the children. Then, we're going to test again to make sure treatment is working.' "

McGavick's plan says that if recipients refuse treatment, cash benefits would be redirected from the parents to a third party. Continued refusal to accept treatment or repeated drug-test failures would result in removal of children from the home.

Spokesmen for the state welfare program and the campaign of incumbent Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell did not immediately return after-hours telephone calls for comment

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003257790_mcgavick14.html

They already have the "Workfare" program, employers I know that are in that state program say some of them are okay, others downright unemployable. Now there's the third and fourth generation of welfare receipients, I think this program encourages a false sense of entitlement as well as a sense of helplessness.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Quote:So, all the violence precipitated by OBL is because he is a have not?:

Oh no....OBL is not a have not. You hit the nail on the head...He has a whole lot of money. This is also why he wasn't on one of the planes on 9/11. This is also why he hasn't strapped a bomb to himself. He preaches to the poor in the Middle East about Muhhammed. It inspires them to commit these acts cause they have nothing on Earth. What do they have to lose? At least they can act for their God and be rewarded in heaven. Bin Laden himself doesn't believe his own teaching to Muslims I think. I think the man just wants to rule the earth. I honestly believe that. He doesn't care about the American presence in the Middle East. Only because it keeps him from being a leader. Other than that, he hates damn near everyone. Bombing in London, Egypt, Jordan. To name a few. He's a quack. I am sure he and Charles Manson would get along real good.

Being inspired to violence, versus forced to bear arms, are two entire different things.

So, if not being a "have not" isnt what caused OBL to hatred, then what did? Many, many of the terrorists are well to do. You cant simply get all the supplies etc etc without alot of money. Thats why the Bush administration targeted their finances as one way to defeat them.

Also, those countries with the poor people are only like that because they have dictators. Our country, the US, doesnt need the govt to let the private citizens take care of our poor.

Now, saddam was paying terrorists, or the family of the suicide terrorists, so that was appealing to the poor. Of course, that links Iraq to terrorism, something the libs dont want us to believe existed.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No - you're making the mistake of assuming that human behavior is fixed, rather than altered by changing circumstances. As LuvRPgrl pointed out, Americans have always been a generous people, even during the worst of times. But, when the government sets itself up as the agent of confiscation and redistribution - according to ITS notions of who is and isn't needy and deserving - it causes two things to happen. First, people become understandably resentful. Second, and more to the point, we have less money to give.

BTW, welcome to the board!

There are a few other things that happen also.

One, NO accountability exists. The people on the govt doll can do whatever they want. In private charities, they usually make certain requirements to be able to receive benefits. Like, go look for a job. Dont use drugs, drink etc. Actually spend the money on food and shelter, not drugs and booze.

Also, when people receive from the govt, they get a sense of entitlement, the Govt is "suppose" to take care of us, hence, no gratitude. Is that what you meant by resentful?

THird, the courts and the ACLU, American civil lying union, get involved, and do not allow any sort of religion to get involved. A lot of private charities encourage church participation by the beneficiaries, and this often leads to wholesale life changes, for the better.