we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States...

[daveman]

If we don't have social programs that foster stable families and the health of the population we'd be a third-world country right now.

But we don't. Thanks to the Left, we have a welfare system that encourages women to have multiple children out of wedlock.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we don't have social programs that foster stable families and the health of the population we'd be a third-world country right now.

But we don't. Thanks to the Left, we have a welfare system that encourages women to have multiple children out of wedlock.

This is absolutely true. We have a social system that encourages irreponsibility, single parenthood that dooms millions of children to poverty, that discourages marriage, that encourages dependency, that discourages traditional values which in turn encourages antisocial behavior.

We once had a social system that encouraged entreprenourship, innovation, accomplishment, and valued personal responsibility and accountability. We once had a social system with ideals and values that encouraged charity and offering a hand up to folks, but who did not diminish or demean them with assumptions that they aren't smart or capable enough to do something for themselves.

 

[Capitalist]

This is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic and we are trying to keep it.

Do you feel that some personal failure or short coming is preventing you from going out and doing your own armed robberies rather than enlisting the unconstitutional power of government to perform this for you? If you want to steal, to satisfy some moral code of altruism, do it yourself.

The usual non answers from the corporate tools or is that fools. You may want to call it a corporate republic after citizens united. And your last paragraph is beyond idiotic, but then again you are wingnut. But a dictionary may help, may? At least try to make sense, ask mommy to help you express yourself next time. LOL


22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America

"The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace."

Marxist tool.........

 

[Faccops]

One of the reasons cited in that link, why the middle class is dissappearing, was too much government involvement, not too little. i.e. the government passing more and more regulations that make it more difficult for companies to do business here, so they move overseas to do business.

 

[Foxfyre]

Agree.

Welfare is nothing but charity we taxpayers are forced to give. Golly gee. There is no charity in the Constitution. Wonder how that happened??

I don't know about you but I like to pick my charities not have the Govt decide who is deserving of my tax dollars.

As for Pelosi I'll be waiting with baited breath for her and her extremely wealthy husband to divvy up their wealth with the poor and downtrodden. She can even open up her vinhyard to the homeless.

She is a liberal elite after all and isn't that what they live for??

Oh wait. I forgot. They are all about spreading everyone elses wealth .

Yep. Vanquish's heart is probably in the right place, but he is refusing to debate the issue or what is actually being said here, And he refuses to see the difference between the intent of the Constitution re governance and how the people choose to organize the society they wish to have. He isn't acknowledging the difference between local and Federal government.

Charity is not saying to the other guy that HE should or must use HIS
resources to help that other person or those other people out. That is the liberal view of charity.

Charity is voluntarily giving of your own time, talent, and resources to help out somebody. I've seen lots of studies showing that conservatives are much more likely to do that than liberals. In fact I've never seen a study that showed liberals are more likely to do that period.

And Charity is not just throwing money at a problem that continues to get worse. Charity includes good stewardship that requires effort to solve the problem and improve the situation.

And whenever you have a situation in which the government can take the people's money and use it to increase its own power, prestige, privilege, size, influence, and personal wealth, you create a situation in which government will choose to do mostly that. And you create a situation in which the people choose government who promises to take other people's money to benefit themselves. That is not charity. That is corruption.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt at least.

I'm not sidestepping or refusing to debate anything. If so, what?

You're the one who is equivocating. You're equating social programs with charity. No, there's nothing in the Constitution that mandates charity. There, happy? But there is taxation for the common good. I've admitted something...can you be just as even-handed and admit that?

The purpose of government, the reason why people get together rather than live alone, apart, and at gun's length, is because together we can do more than we can separately. And when we lift others up, we lift ourselves up

What you're failing to recognize is that it IS the scope of the government that we have created (not just in the constitution but all the legislators that have come after...some conservatives seem to want to side step what their legislators have done themselves and just make "EVUL LIBRALS" out to be Constitution haters...it gets really old and tiresome, seriously) to tackle the issues of public health, education, and

Are you one of those that doesn't understand that federal agencies DO have constitutional roots and authority? Should we get rid of the dept of education? how about the EPA? or the FDA? Don't be selective with your constitutional literalism.

Your conservative Supreme Court was the one that expanded the Commerce Clause to basically mean any interstate commerce can be regulated...so don't come crying home to me when the legislature's scope has been expanded.

I'm just as pissed about wasted tax money as you are. I HATE paying taxes. I pay multiple taxes for my family, my father (I pay his taxes for him, it's a long story) as well as the 2 businesses I own. But just because I hate it, doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I get it...the less they get...the less they can **** up. Seriously. I get it.

It's funny that you talk about corruption. If you'll go to the Education section of this forum, I posted several days ago about an utterly DEPLORABLE state education case that I'm working...the utter corruption of education and the tax money that's supposed to be spent on the children of the state of Alabama. My client spoke out against the corruption of federal grant money being diverted from deserving children due to improper political influence and she got fired for it by corrupt officials. We're fighting it and hope to prevail.

Without those federal dollars going to underprivileged kids you'll have a work force of insanely stupid, terribly unhireable workers. And then your economy tanks. Good luck with that.

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for the 'common good'. The Constitution allows Congress to collect taxes as necessary for the Constitutionally established functions of government which basically comes down to PROVIDING the common defense and PROMOTING the general welfare. I think the Founders were quite conscious of the difference between PROVIDE and PROMOTE. And the Founders were explicit that the people's money should never be used to benefit any special interest whether a person or group.

“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

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

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

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

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).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

*************************************************
I am no stranger to the corruption in government at all levels and I too have been involved in opposing it. The fact that it exists certain is no ringing endorsement for removing the corruption to mostly the Federal level where the people have little or no opportunity to ferret it out and deal with it.

And I am also a long time student of American history including the history of education in this country. Ever since the Federl government got involved in education, the quality and performance of the nation's schools has relentlessly and undeniably declined. We once had one of the best public education systems in the world. Now we rank at or near the bottom among developed nations. Again not a ringing endorsement for involvement of the Federal government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I used eight words Foxfyre. lol

Generally being succinct is not usually listed as one of my virtues.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The US is on the decline. China is rising as a world power and we are falling.

 

[kiwiman127]

"Marxist tool......... "
=================
Why is it that you're in such a big denial that there is truly a wealth gap? It's a fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
As I have not yet reached my 15 post minimum posts, I am not allowed to post links, so let's try this:
Go to Google, use the following words in Google's Advanced Search
"15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America", there you will find easy to understand graphs.
Also put this in a Google Advanced Search from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, "Dimensions of Inequality:Facts on the U.S. Distributionsof Earnings, Income, and Wealth".

 

[saveliberty]

I used eight words Foxfyre. lol

Generally being succinct is not usually listed as one of my virtues.

Not short and to the point? Six words.

 

[Vanquish]

Well at least you've gotten to some semblance of argument. Provide vs Promote.

But what you've failed to admit is that the Executive branch has the ability to create agencies that themselves can set policies for the entire general public. Let me put that a different way. Not all constitutional doctrines are spelled out in the constitution. The nature of our government is that bodies of law emerge over time, due to case law and it's interpretation.

So admit that not everything that's constitutional is actually IN the constitution. If you can't, even Scalia would say you fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well at least you've gotten to some semblance of argument. Provide vs Promote.

But what you've failed to admit is that the Executive branch has the ability to create agencies that themselves can set policies for the entire general public. Let me put that a different way. Not all constitutional doctrines are spelled out in the constitution. The nature of our government is that bodies of law emerge over time, due to case law and it's interpretation.

So admit that not everything that's constitutional is actually IN the constitution. If you can't, even Scalia would say you fail.

The fact that the U.S. government has overstepped the boundaries and corrupted much original intent of the Constitution does not change the intended boundaries or that original intent. The fact that we have allowed the government to grow into the bloated, incompetent, expensive, self-serving corrupt entity that it is should give freedom loving people everywhere pause for thought.

The whole thrust of the 9/12ers, Tea Partiers, and similar grassroot movements in the USA grew out of growing concern that we are about to lose that Constitution and the original intent entirely. Unless we put people into power who respect the principles of the Declaration of Independence that were transferred to the Preamble of the Constitution and who restore the great experiment of a people not being governed but who govern themselves, I personally think those fears will be realized.

 

[saveliberty]

Well at least you've gotten to some semblance of argument. Provide vs Promote.

But what you've failed to admit is that the Executive branch has the ability to create agencies that themselves can set policies for the entire general public. Let me put that a different way. Not all constitutional doctrines are spelled out in the constitution. The nature of our government is that bodies of law emerge over time, due to case law and it's interpretation.

So admit that not everything that's constitutional is actually IN the constitution. If you can't, even Scalia would say you fail.

You are incorrect. The agency is funded by Congress who can cut them off at any time. Further, if that agency violates a law written by Congress, it has done something illegal.

 

[ForestGirl]

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

 

[daveman]

If we don't have social programs that foster stable families and the health of the population we'd be a third-world country right now.

But we don't. Thanks to the Left, we have a welfare system that encourages women to have multiple children out of wedlock.

This is absolutely true. We have a social system that encourages irreponsibility, single parenthood that dooms millions of children to poverty, that discourages marriage, that encourages dependency, that discourages traditional values which in turn encourages antisocial behavior.

We once had a social system that encouraged entreprenourship, innovation, accomplishment, and valued personal responsibility and accountability. We once had a social system with ideals and values that encouraged charity and offering a hand up to folks, but who did not diminish or demean them with assumptions that they aren't smart or capable enough to do something for themselves.

And the people who set up and support the present system do so not out of concern for the people they're trying to "help", but in order to gain and consolidate political power.

 

[ForestGirl]

And the people who set up and support the present system do so not out of concern for the people they're trying to "help", but in order to gain and consolidate political power.

I agree. And would like to add to the "pot" the almighty green!

It's only going to change if WE all become very involved with our congressional reps. We must hold them accountable in every district throughtout the US. Most people don't even know what district they reside in nor do they know who reps them in DC. I'm fortunate that the people who live in my district have banded together to unseat our current rep. Once that happens on Nov 2nd, the guy we vote in, is already prepared to begin to answer and work for his constituants. We let him know early on, he can run, but he can't hide from us. I really urge everyone to not just assume that their rep has their best interests at heart. We have to "police" them every step of the way. And if they let us down...then one session is all they'll have. It must start at the local level...in every disctrict.

 

[code1211]

<snip>


Without those federal dollars going to underprivileged kids you'll have a work force of insanely stupid, terribly unhireable workers. And then your economy tanks. Good luck with that.

Hello from Indiana. The feds pay about 7% of the education dollar for the average student. Here in indiana it costs $11,000/ year to fund the education of each student in the public schools and $6000/year to fund the education of each student in private schools.

The 7% from the Feds goes only to the public schools and the graduarion rate, test scores, in-school violence, crime, drugs and any other measure you care to make varies the wrong way in the public schools.

The money sent by the feds does not make this possible. It only augments the waste and corrupt misappropriation of funds that is our educational system. A system, by the way, that is allowing our students to fall farther and farther behind their competitors in most other countries of the Industrialized World.

Our nation's education system has fallen from #1 to #24 under the guidance of the Department of Education. The argument should not be "should we end it?". The argument should be "why should we keep it?" It's a dismal failure.

 

[code1211]

The US is on the decline. China is rising as a world power and we are falling.

Change the word China to the word Japan and you have the generally held belief in the 70's.

 

[Flopper]

Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09 By Kevin Bogardus and Barbra Kim
08/31/10

The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.

While the economy struggled through a recession during much of 2009 and the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, the stock market rebounded, helping lawmakers with large investments. The S&P 500 rose by about 28 percent in 2009. . . .

. . . .The only newcomer to the Top 10 list is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who came straight in at No. 5. He replaced Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), the 10th wealthiest member in 2008. Teague at first fell off the top 50 list after the value of a company he has a stake in — Teaco Energy Services Inc. — fell in value from $39.6 million in 2008 to at the least $1 million in 2009. But he later filed an amendment to his financial disclosure form, now reporting the company was worth at least $25 million. That made him the 12th richest member of Congress in 2009.

There were a few other new faces in the Top 50, including Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who received an inheritance after his late father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), died in 2009.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) also made the list.

Twenty-seven Democrats along with 23 Republicans make up the 50 richest in Congress; 30 House members and 20 senators are on the list. . . .

. . . .Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with a net worth of $160.1 million, is the second-richest member of Congress under The Hill’s formula, even though his wealth declined by more than $4 million in 2009.

He is followed by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who saw her net wealth leap to $152.3 million, a jump of more than $40 million from a year ago.

The rest of the top 10 are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), McCaul, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

To calculate its rankings, The Hill used only the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms that cover the 2009 calendar year. . . ,
Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09 - TheHill.com

Along with this is the fact that U.S. federal employees making up an increasingly bloated bureaucracy are among the highest in the world and enjoy the best benefits and retirement plans to die for. Because of this, this past week Washington DC rents surpassed NYC as the priciest in the nation despite having some of the nation's poorest citizens and some of the nation's crappiest schools.

Does seem to be out o balance doesn't it? Let's support Speaker Pelosi and start dealing with the problem beginning with Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

or as William Henry Harison said,
"I believe and I say it is true Democratic feeling, that all the measures of the government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer."

So what's new?

 

[thereisnospoon]

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

SPOT ON!!!!

You will need an asbestos suit to protect you from the flaming you will receive.
This kind of thing infuriates the Left.
It infuriates them for a few reasons.
One, it refutes everything they believe in. Two, it tells an irrefutable truth ands that leaves the Lefties frustrated and angry.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If we don't have social programs that foster stable families and the health of the population we'd be a third-world country right now.

But we don't. Thanks to the Left, we have a welfare system that encourages women to have multiple children out of wedlock.

Welfare transfer payments have created a permanent underclass of under employed and entitlement mentality people.