The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?

[ScienceRocks]

Poll after poll after poll shows the voters despise Obamacare.

People don't want to pay there own way? Employers don't want to do whats right?

There's nothing right about Obamacare. I'm fine with paying my own way. I'm not fine with paying the way for a bunch of deadbeats, freeloaders and illegal aliens.

Well, we agree with illegal aliens, BUT, we all pay for the infrastructure, education , etc as a nation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You mean socialism can't bring them into the first world?

Democracy teamed with Socialist Ideals can.

They don't have that in Venezuela?

Venezuela is anti-innovation and anti-production. A social democracy has a private sector and public that promote both of those!

 

[OnePercenter]

Socialism teamed with any form of gov't is unsustainable.
Democracy + Socialism = INEPTOCRACY_(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Socialist Ideology.

 

[OnePercenter]

You mean socialism can't bring them into the first world?

Democracy teamed with Socialist Ideals can.

They don't have that in Venezuela?

Venezuela is a third world country. Ever been there? I have. It's third world.

 

[OnePercenter]

FactCheck.org is a leftwing propaganda organ. Furthermore, nothing on that site addressed my complain.

Yes, Walter Annenberg was a liberal. Nice try.

 

[OnePercenter]

It happens everywhere. IBM is about to lay off 100,000

IBM Will Not LayOff 100 000 Employees WSJ

 

[OnePercenter]

There's nothing right about Obamacare. I'm fine with paying my own way. I'm not fine with paying the way for a bunch of deadbeats, freeloaders and illegal aliens.

You already were, at a higher price than ACA.

 

[OnePercenter]

Like I said welfare IS the problem. It is expanded by government. Moron.

If Walmart paid their employees responsibly like I do, we'd not be discussing this.

 

[Dad2three]

The only manipulation going on, now or ever, was through government.

Governments come and go and with them, the 'elites'.

Government is at the heart of everything wrong with civilization, not business

Hereditary wealth and/or multinational corporations have controlled every western government for thousands of years. Without some form of government, civilization and its artifacts like markets and private wealth doesn't exist. The solution is to build a wall of separation between the state and the influence of private wealth, and make sure the state's richest citizens are first to risk their lives in war.

No shit. No one denies this.
Your argument is typical of lib progressives. You all have set up the straw man argument that the argument for limited more fiscally responsible government is actually an argument for NO government.
That is neither true nor accurate.

“The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it." - P.J. O’rourke

 

[Dad2three]

The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding.

I couldn't disagree more with this view of government.

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

 

[ScienceRocks]

I doubt a single one of these idiots would like if there wasn't a government...
-No infrastructure
-No regulations protecting workers rights
-No police protection
-No fire
-no more military
-No minimum wage protecting the low to middle class
-No science funding = no nws weather warnings. So your ass is on your own!!!

These losertrians don't think things through.

 

[Dad2three]

For the Federal government, it's primarily to provide for the common defense.

Common defense has many more facets today than it did 200 years ago, for example, unemployment and climate change qualify as threats to common defense and the general welfare. You aren't one of those who thinks a literal interpretation of the US Constitution supplies enough answers for a 21st century republic to survive, are you?

oh bullshit...
People in government decided all by themselves that with a stroke of a pen or a check here or there, they could solve all of the problems facing the nation. But along the way they figured out they needed revenue to do the solving. So they created more crises in order to attach more of our earnings. And to solve the crises, people( employees) were required which in turn require even more taxation and regulation.
The whole system of government placing itself in the role of parent and sibling to the people has gotten out of control...
It was never the intention of the Founders to make the federal government the largest civilian employer in the nation. It was never intended for federal employees to make a career of government. The intent was "service to the people"...That one as a servant to the people did so on a temporary basis. Then they went home back to their normal lives and let the next person in line take over.
Finally, the purpose of the US Constitution is not to "provide answers"....The document is the foundation of our nation. Without it, we crumble.
Yes, every so often the Constitution requires adjustments.
Hence the reason for the Amendment process.
Unfortunately, we have a chief executive who views the Constitution as a barrier or an annoyance.
And to answer your next retort.
Obama basically wiped out our duly passed and signed immigration laws by political fiat. HE decided all by himself that our immigration laws were simply "not to be enforced"....
That is just one example.

"Obama basically wiped out our duly passed and signed immigration laws by political fiat. HE decided all by himself that our immigration laws were simply "not to be enforced"...."







President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


Bush Claims He Has Authority To Disobey More Than 750 Laws...

 

[Dad2three]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

liberals believe that "promote the general welfare" means take care of everyone from birth to death, except unborn children that is.

No they don't

They believe in helping people who need help

Everyone believes in helping people who need help. Able bodied people on generational welfare do not need our tax dollars to maintain their drug and booze habits.

Countries like Pakistan also do not need our tax dollars.

We waste billions based on dem/lib feeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooooooootion.

The only ones Republicans are concerned about helping is the one percent

Now, this is the point where you get to point out any GOP legislation from Republicans that is not targeted to the one percent

Tut tut. You are demanding one of us prove a negative...
Tell ya what.....go to house.gov or senate.gov.....There you can look up all the legislation you want. You can prove you are just spouting off class envy whinyness yourself.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL. Well, this book was written in the 18th century. It was a contemporary to Adam Smith's two great books, with the Wealth of Nations being commonly thought the first real economics work. Smith also wrote a book in which he discussed the emotional basis of decision making, or when something is not purely in one's self interest. So, maybe this book is not so contrary to Smith, though I admit I don't go back much further than Marx in economics as it just doesn't seem that relevant to me. But you have on one hand Adam Smith and his natl laws

Adam smiths natural rights ChaCha
And the contrary that private actions, legal and illegal, can be regulated by the amount of good they convey.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

This is my civic story and i can stick to it. Our federal Constitution was Intelligently Designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

United States Constitution which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

 

[Agit8r]

The purpose of a legitimate government is to restrain oppression, whether oppression makes the masses happy or not.

 

[Dad2three]

Rightwinger, how many people in the last 7-10 years % have gotten off of welfare? and gotten to those other things?

In the past 7-10 years have children from welfare families gone to college or technical schools and gotten jobs afterwards? Yes they have
In the past 7-10 years have welfare mothers received jobs training and placements that allow them to enter the workforce? Yes they have
Inj the past 7-10 years have people with disabilities received training that allows them to enter the workforce? Yes they have
In the past 7-10 years have out of work employees been trained in new fields? Yes they have

those things have been happening for the last 50 years or more. nothing new there, sewer worker.

All part of LBJs "War on Poverty"

Thanks for pointing it out

yeah, and it failed, there is a higher per centage of americans in poverty now than when LBJ started that foolishness and we have spent trillions to accomplish nothing, thanks for reminding us who started it. Actually you are wrong about that too, FDR really started the liberal downfall of the USA.

"yeah, and it failed, there is a higher per centage of americans in poverty now than when LBJ started that foolishness"


What's wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan's government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since.

But at the beginning, in the '60s, those programs were fully funded, or close. And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, "the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century." That's a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.


Tomasky War on Poverty Worked Democratic Strategist




The Great Society: It Was Great


Every time new poverty numbers come out, I inevitably find the historical chart and am once again reminded of what a persistent and pernicious myth it is that somehow Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was a failure. As with any ambitious series of new policy initiatives, some of the things done in the Kennedy-Johnson years didn’t work out well, but the results shown here speak volumes.


When Ronald Reagan proclaimed “we declared war on poverty and poverty won” he was dead wrong — poverty still existed, but the number of impoverished Americans had declined precipitously. Then, under 12 years of conservative rule, the number went way up!

...Meanwhile, if you look at the age breakout you’ll see that one reason we haven’t swung too far back to where we were pre-LBJ is that the poverty numbers for senior citizens have remained very low — thanks in large part to the fact that the elements of the Great Society that targeted seniors have basically been kept in place.







The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.
The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity - The Atlantic

 

[Dad2three]

The purpose of a legitimate government is to restrain oppression, whether oppression makes the masses happy or not.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

Nobody is enslaved
Millions of Americans have escaped poverty using government programs

Welfare is poverty, moron.

Figured that one out for yourself did ya?

And welfare provides a safety net for those struggling with poverty. But we do not stop at welfare....we provide educational programs, jobs training, employment initiatives, small business initiatives, child care. All to help people escape poverty

And I wonder just how many get off the dole?
I'm sure there are people on welfare and some sort of assistance for years.

Yes there are.

But is the problem welfare or the lack of employment opportunities in urban areas? Our cities used to be a focal point for finding jobs. Manufacturing, small business, service jobs. When those jobs left the cities people who relied on those jobs were left with nothing. No amount of training is going to get people into jobs that no longer exist

why did those jobs leave the big cities? any idea, RW?

try these: taxes, unions, crime. Why did our cities become centers for taxes, unions, and crime? The welfare state.

liberalism always fails, always has, always will.

Couldn't possibly be the wage stagnation for 30+ years of Reaganomics tilting the playing field toward plutocracy as all the profits of increased productivity go upward to executives and insiders.

Maybe we should go back to the good old days when tax rates were high and the corporations save their tax money by reinvesting into their company instead of just pulling everything out.



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

 

[Agit8r]

The purpose of a legitimate government is to restrain oppression, whether oppression makes the masses happy or not.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

Well played