A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Vidi]

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?

I don't think it can Fox.

I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.

But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.

I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.

I don't think we can legislate the problem away.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

I was speaking of our local government only. Still, if another source can deliver a service the government is attempting at a better price and quality...

 

[dblack]

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?

I don't think it can Fox.

I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.

But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.

I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.

I don't think we can legislate the problem away.

But most of the practices the resolution targets aren't illegal, and don't involve breaking any rules. The giveaways and favors being "pandered" are legal under the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution. What I see in the resolution is a statement rejecting corporatist government and reaffirming that the purpose of government is protecting equal rights under the law, rather than handing out "benefits". It's either asserting "no, we really mean it" regarding existing protections, or calling for actually amendments that clarify the intent.

 

[saveliberty]

How about your only entitled to a pup tent every three years, a spot in the park to pitch it, access to the porta potty, oatmeal for breakfast, peanut butter sandwich for lunch and soup with salad for dinner. Everything else you get on your own.

 

[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?

I don't think it can Fox.

I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.

But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.

I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.

I don't think we can legislate the problem away.

But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

 

[Vidi]

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?

I don't think it can Fox.

I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.

But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.

I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.

I don't think we can legislate the problem away.

But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

I think youre missing my point.

One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.

However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.

In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.

So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think it can Fox.

I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.

But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.

I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.

I don't think we can legislate the problem away.

But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

I think youre missing my point.

One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.

However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.

In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.

So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.

No it doesn't. Pell grants are limited to certain income levels. So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics. The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research. They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies. Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others. Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.

And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.

Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm appreciating Vidi's ability to carry on a civil debate. I agree with Foxfyre that most social programs used in the US produce winners and losers. Further it produces dependence and behaviors opposite that which we should be promoting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, Vidi has been great. He's really making me defend my argument.

 

[Vidi]

But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

I think youre missing my point.

One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.

However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.

In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.

So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.

No it doesn't. Pell grants are limited to certain income levels. So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics. The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research. They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies. Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others. Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.

And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.

Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.

It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.

OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.

 

[Vidi]

I'm appreciating Vidi's ability to carry on a civil debate. I agree with Foxfyre that most social programs used in the US produce winners and losers. Further it produces dependence and behaviors opposite that which we should be promoting.

I would argue that ALL social programs produce winners and losers.

But are the losers really losers?

If we tax a guy making a million dollars a year at an effective tax rate of 35% thats 350,000 dollars in taxes. Can he not feed his family on the remaining $650,000?

So while we can debate the fairness or unfairness of a 35% tax rate ( I used an extremely high number to avoid that debate...another thread for that please ) , I owuldnt exactly call someone who take ownership of $650,000 a year a "loser"?



And thank you both for your kind words and your own civility.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think youre missing my point.

One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.

However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.

In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.

So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.

No it doesn't. Pell grants are limited to certain income levels. So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics. The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research. They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies. Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others. Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.

And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.

Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.

It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.

OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.

Exactly. So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment.

But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation. That is precisely what the resolution says.

It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.

 

[dblack]

It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

I've seen this argument many times before. And while it's always seemed "off" to me, I've never really seen exactly how, but I think I'm beginning to.

Arguably, all law is discriminatory in nature. We punish people who don't abide, and leave the rest alone. But ordinary law discriminates against people who have, nominally, done something wrong. The kind of discriminatory law you're defending is of a different nature and singles people out for special treatment (positive or negative) based on arbitrary goals of the state. That doesn't seem like 'equal protection' to me.

The way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

This is true. But it would also end corporate welfare and make a huge dent in corporatist government. Most of the lobbyists would get bored and go home.

Would it be worth the tradeoff, given that we could do all the safety netting we wanted at the state, local and *gasp* non-governmental community level? Obviously, I think so.

 

[Vidi]

It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

I've seen this argument many times before. And while it's always seemed "off" to me, I've never really seen exactly how, but I think I'm beginning to.

Arguably, all law is discriminatory in nature. We punish people who don't abide, and leave the rest alone. But ordinary law discriminates against people who have, nominally, done something wrong. The kind of discriminatory law you're defending is of a different nature and singles people out for special treatment (positive or negative) based on arbitrary goals of the state. That doesn't seem like 'equal protection' to me.

Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability. Stability is everything for a country. A country with little stability has very little economic opportunity as well, so by taking from the rich and giving to the poor it provides the stability needed for the entrepenuer to make his fortune. Social safety nets are not just in place "to help out the needy in their time of crisis". Thats a nice sentiment, but they are also there to keep that portion of the population from taking matters into their own hands. they MUST be placated or riots, looting even open rebellion takes place.

The way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

This is true. But it would also end corporate welfare and make a huge dent in corporatist government. Most of the lobbyists would get bored and go home.

Would it be worth the tradeoff, given that we could do all the safety netting we wanted at the state, local and *gasp* non-governmental community level? Obviously, I think so.

I think youre placing far too much faith in the abilities of State and Local governemnts.

Think of it this way:

Corporate welfare doesnt exist just on the Federal level. It exists at all levels of government. Currently the top six banking institutions in America have a net value of 2/3rds the total of the annual GDP of the United States. In other words, they could buy or sell any single state in the Union, even California which is the 8th largest economy in the world.

If with this resolution, we defang the Federal government in an attempt to end corruption, we will simply take away one of the levels of protection the smaller and therefore weaker levels of government possess. That why Montana losing their Citizens United ruling is so scary. SCOTUS just opened the door for corruption that the State government is now powerless to stop. Over the next few election cycles Montana is going to become the testing ground for Citizens United and its effects on State governments. I suspect we will see a huge increase in the amount of corruption in Montana over the next decade ( unless we deal with the CItizens United problem once and for all )

Additonally, consider Mitt Romneys governorship of Massechusets. He entered office facing a lrage budget deficit. he dealt with it by raising fees for government services, cutting those services and then cutting fund to local municipalities. This forced the local governments to cut their budgets and raise property taxes to make up the difference.

This means people were paying more and getting less and the social safety nets lost funds in the process.


so TLDR version:

Ending social safety nets leads to instability and unrest

State and Local governments to not have the financial clout to ward off the kind of money that multinational corporations can porr into an area and thus corruption and your taxes would increase, while services would decrease.

 

[Vidi]

No it doesn't. Pell grants are limited to certain income levels. So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics. The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research. They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies. Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others. Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.

And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.

Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.

It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.

OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.

Exactly. So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment.

But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation. That is precisely what the resolution says.

It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.

Sorry youre going to have to enlighten me on how Ive argued against my point. Im not seeing it.

 

[dblack]

Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability.

Well, as I mentioned before, that's where we disagree. In my view the single mission of government is to protect our rights. Stability is often a side-effect of that, but often not, and should never be the goal.

I think youre placing far too much faith in the abilities of State and Local governemnts.

I'm placing more faith in people, that's for sure. State and local governments, meh.. not so much. (see comment below)

Corporate welfare doesnt exist just on the Federal level. It exists at all levels of government.

Very true, which is the single biggest reason I want to see this resolution extended to the individual States as well, via the fourteenth. This would end welfare there as well, but it wouldn't prevent us from developing safety net systems outside of government.

 

[Vidi]

Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability.

Well, as I mentioned before, that's where we disagree. In my view the single mission of government is to protect our rights. Stability is often a side-effect of that, but often not, and should never be the goal.

I think youre placing far too much faith in the abilities of State and Local governemnts.

I'm placing more faith in people, that's for sure. State and local governments, meh.. not so much. (see comment below)

Corporate welfare doesnt exist just on the Federal level. It exists at all levels of government.

Very true, which is the single biggest reason I want to see this resolution extended to the individual States as well, via the fourteenth. This would end welfare there as well, but it wouldn't prevent us from developing safety net systems outside of government.

In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.


As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.

I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.

 

[dblack]

In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.

Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. And when protecting rights requires stability, then we aim for stability - but it must be in the service of protecting rights, and not the end goal in and of itself. That to me presents nightmare scenarios. Things could be quite 'stable' in a locked-down police state. But I wouldn't want to live there.

As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.

I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.

I hear you. I'm suggesting otherwise; that disaster is what we're headed for if we don't reverse the trend. I see far more risk of rioting as dependency on the state grows ever more pervasive and vital to everyday life.

 

[Vidi]

In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.

Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. And when protecting rights requires stability, then we aim for stability - but it must be in the service of protecting rights, and not the end goal in and of itself. That to me presents nightmare scenarios. Things could be quite 'stable' in a locked-down police state. But I wouldn't want to live there.

Excellent point. I may want to rethink my wording, though I am unable to come up with a better word at the moment.

As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.

I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.

I hear you. I'm suggesting otherwise; that disaster is what we're headed for if we don't reverse the trend. I see far more risk of rioting as dependency on the state grows ever more pervasive and vital to everyday life.

Ahhh now we get into a different debate though, dont we? How best to serve the economic interests of the country as a whole?

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.

OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.

Exactly. So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment.

But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation. That is precisely what the resolution says.

It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.

Sorry youre going to have to enlighten me on how Ive argued against my point. Im not seeing it.

You said the 14th Amendment produces equal treatment in the matter of government charity and then provided specific examples of how it does not.

Rewarding the least successful and denying reward to the most successful is not equal protection. Most especially when it is the most successful who are required to provide the funding for the least successful. That is arbitrary redistribution of wealth that should never be a function of the federal government.

The federal government should be returned to its original role in which promoting the general welfare meant doing what was helpful for all to prosper, but nobody was any more entitled to money from the treasury than anybody else no matter who they are.