Morally Bizarre

[georgephillip]

That's the typical bullshit argument. Governments were not formed to collectively do that

Why do you think governments were formed if not to provide protection from outside threats, from each other, and security for those who can't be self-sufficient?

 

[Conservative65]

That's the typical bullshit argument. Governments were not formed to collectively do that

Why do you think governments were formed if not to provide protection from outside threats, from each other, and security for those who can't be self-sufficient?

Read the Constitution and you'll see the purpose of government. Not one word in it includes food stamps, government housing, WIC, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. The term "general welfare" does not mean that one person is entitled to another person's money. If anything, it means you have the voluntary opportunity to give them yours but you don't have one bit of business giving them mine.
\
There is a big difference between being unable and unwilling. There is a big difference between being in a situation not of your own doing and being in one where your own mistakes caused it. I'll use the high school dropout again as an example. He/She quit school. Since education is a primary factor in determining income level, their lack of an education is a primary factor is why they have less of an ability to earn more. They fit into the they caused their own situation. That being the case, they also fit into the you pay for your own bad choices category. It's not someone else's responsibility to pay more in taxes becasue of bad choices by another person. The same goes for many things where the direct cause of a bad economic situation is the person in it.

 

[georgephillip]

Read the Constitution and you'll see the purpose of government. Not one word in it includes food stamps, government housing, WIC, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. The term "general welfare" does not mean that one person is entitled to another person's money. If anything, it means you have the voluntary opportunity to give them yours but you don't have one bit of business giving them mine.

General welfare has been subject to different interpretations over the past 200 years:
"Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion.

"Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole[23] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."
General Welfare clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

By the same reasoning, no one is entitled to an education beyond the level their taxes directly fund. Human beings form governments to collectively provide services they are unable to afford individually. When millions of Americans began leaving the farm and working in major cities during the early decades of the 20th Century, they were told by the arch-conservatives of their time that they were no longer independent because they weren't providing their own food. By freely choosing the live in the US you are agreeing to provide your fair share to support the General Welfare of all Americans.

That's the typical bullshit argument. Governments were not formed to collectively do that ....

I don't know why you'd say it's a "bullshit" argument. I agree it's misguided, and a bad idea, but it isn't disingenuous or malicious. That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.

 

[georgephillip]

That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.

In one of the first exchanges you and I had, I questioned whether we should first define "government" or at least consider why such a beast is formed in the first place. Now, I'm wondering if we agree on the following relationship between society and government:
"A human society is a group of people related to each other through continued relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, same interests, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
I never had much success with my threads regarding the purpose of an economy, but, perhaps, some discussion of a government's goals beyond providing safe harbor for vast private fortunes (should any exist) is worth a shot?
Portal Society - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Conservative65]

General we

Read the Constitution and you'll see the purpose of government. Not one word in it includes food stamps, government housing, WIC, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. The term "general welfare" does not mean that one person is entitled to another person's money. If anything, it means you have the voluntary opportunity to give them yours but you don't have one bit of business giving them mine.

General welfare has been subject to different interpretations over the past 200 years:
"Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion.

"Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole[23] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."
General Welfare clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

general welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.

 

[Conservative65]

By the same reasoning, no one is entitled to an education beyond the level their taxes directly fund. Human beings form governments to collectively provide services they are unable to afford individually. When millions of Americans began leaving the farm and working in major cities during the early decades of the 20th Century, they were told by the arch-conservatives of their time that they were no longer independent because they weren't providing their own food. By freely choosing the live in the US you are agreeing to provide your fair share to support the General Welfare of all Americans.

That's the typical bullshit argument. Governments were not formed to collectively do that ....

I don't know why you'd say it's a "bullshit" argument. I agree it's misguided, and a bad idea, but it isn't disingenuous or malicious. That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.

They aren't willing to be convinced. When they think one person that has more than they believe the person should have and owes someone that has less a portion of it, there is no convincing them. Since that is how georgephillip thinks, it's disingenuous especially when he won't do on his own voluntarily what he believes someone else should be forced to do.

 

[georgephillip]

general welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.

Was the Works Progress Administration an example of general or social welfare?

 

[dblack]

That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.

In one of the first exchanges you and I had, I questioned whether we should first define "government" or at least consider why such a beast is formed in the first place. Now, I'm wondering if we agree on the following relationship between society and government:
"A human society is a group of people related to each other through continued relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, same interests, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
I never had much success with my threads regarding the purpose of an economy, but, perhaps, some discussion of a government's goals beyond providing safe harbor for vast private fortunes (should any exist) is worth a shot?
Portal Society - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Absolutely. A clear and concise understanding of the purpose of government is vital. In my view, the purpose of government is to make it possible for us to live freely and peacefully in a pluralistic society.

 

[georgephillip]

Absolutely. A clear and concise understanding of the purpose of government is vital. In my view, the purpose of government is to make it possible for us to live freely and peacefully in a pluralistic society.

"Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles.

"Political pluralists are not inherently liberals (who place liberty and/or equality as their guiding principles) or conservatives (who place order and/or tradition as their guiding principles) but advocate a form of political moderation.

"Nor are political pluralists necessarily advocates of a democratic plurality, but generally agree that this form of government is often best at moderating discrete values."

Pluralism political philosophy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Conservative65]

general welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.

Was the Works Progress Administration an example of general or social welfare?

Neither.

 

[georgephillip]

Neither.

To Promote the General Welfare The Case for Big Government - Google Books

 

[Conservative65]

Neither.

To Promote the General Welfare The Case for Big Government - Google Books

General welfare and social welfare are not the same thing. Forcibly taking then handing one person another person's money is absolutely wrong. If you want someone to have another person's money give them all of yours. If you don't, your claim that I owe them something is invalid. I'll offer you a challenge. If you think someone does come try to collect it from me on their behalf.

 

[georgephillip]

General welfare and social welfare are not the same thing. Forcibly taking then handing one person another person's money is absolutely wrong.

So you think FDR was absolutely wrong to tax the rich to pay for the WPA?

 

[MrDVS1]

You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.

You mean like politicians do for their health care.

 

[Conservative65]

General welfare and social welfare are not the same thing. Forcibly taking then handing one person another person's money is absolutely wrong.

So you think FDR was absolutely wrong to tax the rich to pay for the WPA?

FDR was wrong period. He began an era is socialist programs and they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth mindset. His programs were nothing more than those on the low economic end being taken care of by those the government thinks has too much money.

 

[georgephillip]

FDR was wrong period. He began an era is socialist programs and they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth mindset. His programs were nothing more than those on the low economic end being taken care of by those the government thinks has too much money.

The rich destroyed the global economy during the Roaring Twenties resulting in unemployment rates of 25%. FDR saved capitalism by putting its victims back to work. If he hadn't, there wouldn't be any rich left today to suck the government's tits dry.

 

[Conservative65]

FDR was wrong period. He began an era is socialist programs and they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth mindset. His programs were nothing more than those on the low economic end being taken care of by those the government thinks has too much money.

The rich destroyed the global economy during the Roaring Twenties resulting in unemployment rates of 25%. FDR saved capitalism by putting its victims back to work. If he hadn't, there wouldn't be any rich left today to suck the government's tits dry.

FDR was a socialist piece of shit.

As for the rich, if it weren't for them and the middle class, the leeches would have a tit to suck on with social welfare programs.

 

[georgephillip]

FDR was a socialist piece of shit.

As for the rich, if it weren't for them and the middle class, the leeches would have a tit to suck on with social welfare programs.

"With the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s, a sharp increase in protest and anticapitalist sentiment threatened to undermine the existing political system and create new political parties.

"The findings of diverse opinion polls, as well as the electoral support given to local radical, progressive, and prolabor candidates, indicate that a large minority of Americans were ready to back social democratic proposals.

"It is significant, then, that even with the growth of class consciousness in America, no national third party was able to break the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

"Radicals who operated within the two-party system were often able to achieve local victories, but these accomplishments never culminated in the creation of a sustainable third party or left-wing ideological movement."
How FDR Saved Capitalism Hoover Institution

The rich have always been parasites consuming far beyond what they produce, and every government yet created has served their interests at the expense of its majority.

 

[Conservative65]

FDR was a socialist piece of shit.

As for the rich, if it weren't for them and the middle class, the leeches would have a tit to suck on with social welfare programs.

"With the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s, a sharp increase in protest and anticapitalist sentiment threatened to undermine the existing political system and create new political parties.

"The findings of diverse opinion polls, as well as the electoral support given to local radical, progressive, and prolabor candidates, indicate that a large minority of Americans were ready to back social democratic proposals.

"It is significant, then, that even with the growth of class consciousness in America, no national third party was able to break the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

"Radicals who operated within the two-party system were often able to achieve local victories, but these accomplishments never culminated in the creation of a sustainable third party or left-wing ideological movement."
How FDR Saved Capitalism Hoover Institution

The rich have always been parasites consuming far beyond what they produce, and every government yet created has served their interests at the expense of its majority.

What jobs have poor people produced compared to the trillions in handouts they've received?