Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

[Claudette]

Yup. Everyone takes delight in quoting the General Welfare clause.

Only problem is that it says "Promote" for the general welfare not "Provide."

Big difference.

 

[JoeNormal]

They were everywhere...Americans hel[ped each other UNTIL the Government saw fit to begin the process of the fucking NANNYSTATE.

Don't you read history junior?

Not only do I read history, I had personal accounts from my parents who lived through it. The reason the New Deal came about was because the suffering was so great.

Yes, agree, the collapse and dust bowl were severe, my parents lived through it as well, lifted themselves up by their boot straps, found work, fought in a world war, and became what we now consider the middle class, aka the greatest generation, however, government went far beyond the scope of the new deal to become the gravy train.

The middle class that your parents knew was partly realized by hard work but also a more equitable distribution of wealth thanks in large part to the rise of the unions. Now the corporations pretty much have the middle class under their boot.

 

[The T]

Yup. Everyone takes delight in quoting the General Welfare clause.

Only problem is that it says "Promote" for the general welfare not "Provide."

Big difference.

This^^

 

[P@triot]

In other words, why do you think you'll never need to be supported through rough times? Our economy is rapidly changing - moving towards a knowledge based system. Outsourcing to third world countries is killing our manufacturing base and thanks to trade agreements, no one profits from that except the multinational corporations. Illegal immigrants fill the niche for unskilled labor. Few people have enough land or have sufficient water rights to produce their own food. And most middle class Americans are drowning in a sea of mortgage and credit card debt.

Because history has taught us that centralized government solutions = catastrophic failure. First, it penalizes hard working income earners and rewards the crack addict with 8 babies from 8 different fathers. That's like beating your oldest child for a 4.0 report card, and rewarding your youngest child with a $1,000 for telling their teacher to "f*ck off" and dropping out of school. Nobody would do that, yet the left thinks that very philosophy will bring success to America.

Second, all the federal government does is create waste. Endless waste. Volumes of waste. It wastes money, time, resources, and more. It is the epitome of waste and inefficiency. Anything the government does, can be done 100,000x better by the private sector - including charity.

Third, it imposes on freedom. There is a price to be paid for the freedoms you enjoy, and that price is called personal responsibility. If you lose your job in England, the goverment pays your mortgage for you. If you lose your job in America, you lose your home. There is no safety net - which is why this is and has been, the greatest country in the world. Because the lack of safety net lights a fire under the majority of us and causes us to get up every day and produce at the highest levels. It's why America created the nuclear bomb and not Russia. It's why America first achieved flight and not England. It's why America created the iPad and not China. The fact that my money is taken against my will and used for a program - Social Security (nothing secure about the mess by the way) - that I don't want to be a part of and which, is NOT authorized in the US Constitution, is a major infringement on my freedoms.

Fourth, we already have 5 layers of safety nets in place. First is your family. If you're family won't help you (well, you're probably a jerk), then second you haver friends. If you're friends won't help you (well, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your neighbors. If you're neighbors won't help you (again, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your church. If your church can't provide you with enough help, then you have charity. If 5 "safety nets" aren't enough for a person, then they should probably just give up and die. Sorry, but I don't know what else to tell you - that's more than enough for any person.

I could keep going, but I think that's more than enough information to explain why the so-called "governmet safety net" is despised by true conservatives. To sum it up best though, go back to the first point. It creates FAILURE.

 

[JoeNormal]

people got by however they could with helping each other...these Statist creeps want us to belive what and who we are is courtesy of Government.

People are adapting. Many are now living in minivans and their cars. And as more and more people opt out, the demand for goods and services deteriorates and the economic slow-down accelerates. Maybe it's all for the best - I suppose we'll find out before long. However, the rise of third-world America is something I never thought I'd see from my optimistic childhood growing up in the 60's and 70's.

But YET something YOU cheer on Statist creep. Get out of my face.

Something I cheer on? Clarify please. I'd like to think of myself as a cheerleader for the middle class. That's something that unintentionally or not, the Tea Party is trying to fuck up.

 

[Dr.Drock]

People are adapting. Many are now living in minivans and their cars. And as more and more people opt out, the demand for goods and services deteriorates and the economic slow-down accelerates. Maybe it's all for the best - I suppose we'll find out before long. However, the rise of third-world America is something I never thought I'd see from my optimistic childhood growing up in the 60's and 70's.

But YET something YOU cheer on Statist creep. Get out of my face.

Something I cheer on? Clarify please. I'd like to think of myself as a cheerleader for the middle class. That's something that unintentionally or not, the Tea Party is trying to fuck up.

The middle class that's shrinking partially in thanks to big gov't spending?

40-45% of money spent is spent by gov't, keeping that steady or making it higher won't help any of us.

If you want to help me than advocate slashing gov't programs so gov't can afford to give me a tax cut, I can promise you that'd help me.

 

[The T]

People are adapting. Many are now living in minivans and their cars. And as more and more people opt out, the demand for goods and services deteriorates and the economic slow-down accelerates. Maybe it's all for the best - I suppose we'll find out before long. However, the rise of third-world America is something I never thought I'd see from my optimistic childhood growing up in the 60's and 70's.

But YET something YOU cheer on Statist creep. Get out of my face.

Something I cheer on? Clarify please. I'd like to think of myself as a cheerleader for the middle class. That's something that unintentionally or not, the Tea Party is trying to fuck up.

Know how to read? I suggest you get crackin' son.

 

[JoeNormal]

In other words, why do you think you'll never need to be supported through rough times? Our economy is rapidly changing - moving towards a knowledge based system. Outsourcing to third world countries is killing our manufacturing base and thanks to trade agreements, no one profits from that except the multinational corporations. Illegal immigrants fill the niche for unskilled labor. Few people have enough land or have sufficient water rights to produce their own food. And most middle class Americans are drowning in a sea of mortgage and credit card debt.

Because history has taught us that centralized government solutions = catastrophic failure. First, it penalizes hard working income earners and rewards the crack addict with 8 babies from 8 different fathers. That's like beating your oldest child for a 4.0 report card, and rewarding your youngest child with a $1,000 for telling their teacher to "f*ck off" and dropping out of school. Nobody would do that, yet the left thinks that very philosophy will bring success to America.

Second, all the federal government does is create waste. Endless waste. Volumes of waste. It wastes money, time, resources, and more. It is the epitome of waste and inefficiency. Anything the government does, can be done 100,000x better by the private sector - including charity.

Third, it imposes on freedom. There is a price to be paid for the freedoms you enjoy, and that price is called personal responsibility. If you lose your job in England, the goverment pays your mortgage for you. If you lose your job in America, you lose your home. There is no safety net - which is why this is and has been, the greatest country in the world. Because the lack of safety net lights a fire under the majority of us and causes us to get up every day and produce at the highest levels. It's why America created the nuclear bomb and not Russia. It's why America first achieved flight and not England. It's why America created the iPad and not China. The fact that my money is taken against my will and used for a program - Social Security (nothing secure about the mess by the way) - that I don't want to be a part of and which, is NOT authorized in the US Constitution, is a major infringement on my freedoms.

Fourth, we already have 5 layers of safety nets in place. First is your family. If you're family won't help you (well, you're probably a jerk), then second you haver friends. If you're friends won't help you (well, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your neighbors. If you're neighbors won't help you (again, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your church. If your church can't provide you with enough help, then you have charity. If 5 "safety nets" aren't enough for a person, then they should probably just give up and die. Sorry, but I don't know what else to tell you - that's more than enough for any person.

I could keep going, but I think that's more than enough information to explain why the so-called "governmet safety net" is despised by true conservatives. To sum it up best though, go back to the first point. It creates FAILURE.

Most of what you've posted seems like Fox News cliches. There was a major welfare reform that happened under Clinton. I think the era of crack moms with 8 kids is long gone. And do you actually know anyone who works for the government? The ones I do take their jobs as seriously as anyone I know in private enterprise. Seriously, you can't see a good reason for regulation of any kind?

 

[P@triot]

I am for voluntary safety nets... I fully support charity

But nobody owes you anything for your personal wants or needs.. you, as an adult, are responsible for your own upkeep, food, lodging, etc....

And how many soap box talking points are you going to try and string together in one mini-paragraph??

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Exactly WHO has said it has "proven" (I need proof if you're going to state "proven") to be "inadequate"? Last time I checked, private charity was doing amazing things. Have you seen what the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is doing? What about the charities of the NFL, NBA, and MLB? United Way? Habitat for Humanity? Good God man, the list goes on and on for the amazing things these charities and a whole lot more of them are doing!

 

[JoeNormal]

But YET something YOU cheer on Statist creep. Get out of my face.

Something I cheer on? Clarify please. I'd like to think of myself as a cheerleader for the middle class. That's something that unintentionally or not, the Tea Party is trying to fuck up.

Know how to read? I suggest you get crackin' son.

Yeah, I know how to read. I'm sure I have the credentials to show I've done about 10 times as much of it as you.

 

[The T]

I am for voluntary safety nets... I fully support charity

But nobody owes you anything for your personal wants or needs.. you, as an adult, are responsible for your own upkeep, food, lodging, etc....

And how many soap box talking points are you going to try and string together in one mini-paragraph??

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Exactly WHO has said it has "proven" (I need proof if you're going to state "proven") to be "inadequate"? Last time I checked, private charity was doing amazing things. Have you seen what the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is doing? What about the charities of the NFL, NBA, and MLB? United Way? Habitat for Humanity? Good God man, the list goes on and on for the amazing things these charities and a whole lot more of them are doing!

Yep^

 

[hortysir]

In other words, why do you think you'll never need to be supported through rough times? Our economy is rapidly changing - moving towards a knowledge based system. Outsourcing to third world countries is killing our manufacturing base and thanks to trade agreements, no one profits from that except the multinational corporations. Illegal immigrants fill the niche for unskilled labor. Few people have enough land or have sufficient water rights to produce their own food. And most middle class Americans are drowning in a sea of mortgage and credit card debt.

The "safety net" is a euphemism for organized plunder. The economy has been changing rapidly for 200 years. Rapid change is the hallmark of capitalism. Ossifying the economy doesn't help us compete in the global market. It does precisely the opposite.

Organized plunder is when lobbyists enter congressional offices with lists of proposals requested by the companies or trade groups they represent. Know what I mean? Things like preferential tax breaks and favorable legislation come to mind. Of course, they also bring campaign contribution 'commitments' with them from their bosses, assuming Congress can come through for them, of course.

But Obama kicked all the Lobbyists of the Hill, right?

 

[Claudette]

I think ya better take a trip down to your local Social Services office.

Loads of ladies with illigitimate kids all over the place. Hell. We just had one in court who has already had 13 kid. She has em, immediately get pregnant again and signs all the kids over to the State ot raise.

She is permenantly on Welfare and her kids are being raised in Foster care at the expense of the taxpayers.

She's just one of many no doubt all across this country. She has never worked a day in her life and probably won't.

Talk about being a candidate for spaying.

 

[JoeNormal]

I am for voluntary safety nets... I fully support charity

But nobody owes you anything for your personal wants or needs.. you, as an adult, are responsible for your own upkeep, food, lodging, etc....

And how many soap box talking points are you going to try and string together in one mini-paragraph??

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Exactly WHO has said it has "proven" (I need proof if you're going to state "proven") to be "inadequate"? Last time I checked, private charity was doing amazing things. Have you seen what the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is doing? What about the charities of the NFL, NBA, and MLB? United Way? Habitat for Humanity? Good God man, the list goes on and on for the amazing things these charities and a whole lot more of them are doing!

I'm a pretty generous donator to United Way as middle class people go. But whatever they're able to do would still be considered supplemental.

 

[Stephanie]

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

It is not inadequate.. you have more and more people thinking they are owed it and are too fucking lazy to work to meet their own wants or needs, whether that be 3 jobs, working 'beneath' where they think they should be, or whatever

You have many people willing to help others... you have many more who do not wish to have their freedom infringed upon and FORCED to help those who generally do not help themselves

Three jobs huh. I'm trying to think of what type of jobs a person could perform and have three of them.

what difference does that make? they are SELF SUFFICENT and not asking you to take of them

 

[JoeNormal]

I think ya better take a trip down to your local Social Services office.

Loads of ladies with illigitimate kids all over the place. Hell. We just had one in court who has already had 13 kid. She has em, immediately get pregnant again and signs all the kids over to the State ot raise.

She is permenantly on Welfare and her kids are being raised in Foster care at the expense of the taxpayers.

She's just one of many no doubt all across this country. She has never worked a day in her life and probably won't.

Talk about being a candidate for spaying.

I might second your motion for spaying if that's the case.

 

[P@triot]

Ever heard of the great depression? Many people lost everything they've ever worked for. The ones who didn't nearly starved. Where was all the voluntary charity back then?

They were everywhere...Americans hel[ped each other UNTIL the Government saw fit to begin the process of the fucking NANNYSTATE.

Don't you read history junior?

Not only do I read history, I had personal accounts from my parents who lived through it. The reason the New Deal came about was because the suffering was so great.

Joe - the "suffering was so great" because people did not take personal responsibility. They did not save for a rainy day, never considered that tomorrow they good lose their job, and partied like rock stars. That was their own fault, and many people didn't suffer during that era because they did take the proper personal responsibility.

 

[The T]

It is not inadequate.. you have more and more people thinking they are owed it and are too fucking lazy to work to meet their own wants or needs, whether that be 3 jobs, working 'beneath' where they think they should be, or whatever

You have many people willing to help others... you have many more who do not wish to have their freedom infringed upon and FORCED to help those who generally do not help themselves

Three jobs huh. I'm trying to think of what type of jobs a person could perform and have three of them.

what difference does that make? they are SELF SUFFICENT and not asking you to take of them

And this is what the OP doesn't get. he is upset that a good majority of the American people aren't onboard with submitting the the Imperial Federal Gubmint and his idol Obama...and has to post a thread with a scapegoat called the TEA Party that by-and-large IS the American people that Obama is waging WAR against...including this OP.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. In doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrument for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.
In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, the act is completely unconstitutional and over steps the boundaries established by the constitution in laying taxation for specific benefits received by some and paid for by others, and also breask the general welfare clause of the constitution. This is a state as enumerated by the constitution taken over by congress in a roughshod fashion to meet the end results of a desired goal. In the end, it is a burden and should be voluntary in basis at worst and left tot he states at best.

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'..