Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I have no obligation to help others. I have a responsibility to provide for myself and my family. The more money the gov't takes from me, the harder it is to provide for myself and my family.
Motts growing nightmare
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
I have no obligation to help others. I have a responsibility to provide for myself and my family. The more money the gov't takes from me, the harder it is to provide for myself and my family.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
How much of your money, and wealth, taken from you, would it take for you to say this is wrong?
apple0154
MEOW
Unfortunately, many people do not see it that way. After all, we do select who will represent us.
Ignoring? If a man is responsible for the welfare of his family are not his wife and children his family? If a Captain is responsible for a ship are not the occupants his responsibility? How can one be responsible for a country and not responsible for the citizens of that country.
Whether or not there is any historical documentation makes little difference. What is written, is written. The question is, "Does the welfare of the country mean the welfare of it's citizens?" If not, what does it mean? What other answer is plausible?
apple0154
MEOW
That would depend on the wealth of others. Or stated another way is my share equal to what others contribute.
apple0154
MEOW
Ahhh, that's precisely the point. Inner city, depressed areas with drug gangs, robberies and shootings, looting due to lack of basic necessities, enduring pain when treatment is available but they can't afford it....what of those people whose lives are filled with chaos and barbaric conditions?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I can't fix stupid people.
Is it your contention that we elect babysitters and caretakers? Because last I checked, the founders created a nation where WE THE PEOPLE are sovereign, not the government.
no, the welfare of the united states is, as you have just declared, as it is written. It does not say 'citizens', so your attempt to twist them together is unraveled.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
No. Not even close to what others pay. (%)
Which doesn't matter anyway. Stealing is stealing.
I had an unalienable right to my property until 1913. Now my property is someone elses. How can an amendment take away something that is unalienable?
The general welfare as you see it couldn't exist without the 16th amendment.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Prohibition is the cause for many of the problems in inner cities concerning gangs, robberies and shootings.
What of those very lazy, uneducated people in inner cities. They're biggest problem is welfare if they're on it. Welfare keeps people in poverty for the most part. Right where the people in Washington want them. Dependent.
Last edited:
What you found was a cherry picked weak interpretation of actual statistics.
For the real deal
It's a somewhat complicated paper, but you are such a genius even a Stanford paper should be a breeze.
enjoy
btw, per capita statistics are a better gage for debate then raw numbers. (your link)
apple0154
MEOW
We elect people to represent us and look after our business. Not babysitters and caretakers. More like getting on a ship and expecting the captain to take us where we want to do.
Your attempt to separate them is what's bizarre. The welfare of the United States means the welfare of it's citizens. The Constitution was not written for the benefit of plants and animals or pieces of land.
What makes a country if not it's citizens?
Promote the blessings of liberty. What are the blessings of liberty? Poverty? Hunger? Disease? Or are the blessings the opposite of those things? And to what are those things referring? To animals? Or to the citizens of the United States?
"promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"
Are they referring to a piece of land or are they referring to the citizens? This is not a trick question.
apple0154
MEOW
If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation (and let's remember the Constitution was not ratified until 1781) that's what the United States ran on. During that time the Federal Government had no powers to tax.
Hold that thought for a moment. Imagine a government without the power to tax. How could a government possibly run? It had to depend upon the individual States giving it money. (Ever wonder what those folks were smoking back then?)
As time progressed people realized changes had to be made. As great as the Founding Fathers may have been it's obvious they didn't think everything through.
A country has to have it's citizens working together, cooperating. As for property it was realized it wasn't an unalienable right. While I don't believe people's homes should be taken for commercial enterprises, as have happened in some cases, I also don't believe a person should be allowed to prevent a highway from being constructed in a straight line because the home owner wants the highway to curve around his property.
As populations increase frequently one right will conflict with another right. That's why the Constitution has to be a "living document". It has to adjust or be interpreted taking reality into consideration.
apple0154
MEOW
Prohibition?
Not quite. One must remember those folks were brought up and lived a completely different life. It's easy to say they should just get up and get a job but the problem is they can't get a job because they don't have the education. If they do find some type of employment their benefits are cut so they end up right back where they were.
The problem with government assistance is it's not sufficient. It's not the government that wants to keep people in poverty. It's the other citizens who want to keep people in poverty by b!tching about taxes and people getting help.
For example, why are people not permitted to attend school while collecting welfare? The reason is other folks don't want to pay for someone's education. Instead, they prevent the welfare recipient from increasing their ability to find suitable employment resulting in them staying on welfare. Nobody wins.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation (and let's remember the Constitution was not ratified until 1781) that's what the United States ran on. During that time the Federal Government had no powers to tax.
Hold that thought for a moment. Imagine a government without the power to tax. How could a government possibly run? It had to depend upon the individual States giving it money. (Ever wonder what those folks were smoking back then?)
As time progressed people realized changes had to be made. As great as the Founding Fathers may have been it's obvious they didn't think everything through.
A country has to have it's citizens working together, cooperating. As for property it was realized it wasn't an unalienable right. While I don't believe people's homes should be taken for commercial enterprises, as have happened in some cases, I also don't believe a person should be allowed to prevent a highway from being constructed in a straight line because the home owner wants the highway to curve around his property.
As populations increase frequently one right will conflict with another right. That's why the Constitution has to be a "living document". It has to adjust or be interpreted taking reality into consideration.
I'll respond when I have more time. I'm off to the river. With my tub.
Oh yes,,,, the U.S. Constitution was not ratified in 1781.
Last edited:
The word "welfare" appears twice in the Constitution. Once in the preamble and again in Article 1, Section 8, as the introduction and purpose of the enumerated powers..
The preamble to the Constitution states:
"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."
Article 1, Section 8 states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
In the second useage we can see that it follows the collection of taxes and how they shall be used; cobbled with the first useage we can see that the general welfare relates to using taxes for paying down debt and defence of the country; This interpretation supports the promotion of the peoples general welfare by protecting life and prosperity and encouraging productivity.
Never can it be imposed to suggest that "promoting" a nation of peoples "general" welfare constitutes taking money from the haves to give to the have nots. Another example of "general" welfare for the people would be taxes being spent on roadways; they promote the "general" welfare of all the peoples ability to go from one place to another...they certainly aid in productivity and defence.
The preamble to the Constitution states:
"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."
Article 1, Section 8 states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
In the second useage we can see that it follows the collection of taxes and how they shall be used; cobbled with the first useage we can see that the general welfare relates to using taxes for paying down debt and defence of the country; This interpretation supports the promotion of the peoples general welfare by protecting life and prosperity and encouraging productivity.
Never can it be imposed to suggest that "promoting" a nation of peoples "general" welfare constitutes taking money from the haves to give to the have nots. Another example of "general" welfare for the people would be taxes being spent on roadways; they promote the "general" welfare of all the peoples ability to go from one place to another...they certainly aid in productivity and defence.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation (and let's remember the Constitution was not ratified until 1781) that's what the United States ran on. During that time the Federal Government had no powers to tax.
Hold that thought for a moment. Imagine a government without the power to tax. How could a government possibly run? It had to depend upon the individual States giving it money. (Ever wonder what those folks were smoking back then?)
As time progressed people realized changes had to be made. As great as the Founding Fathers may have been it's obvious they didn't think everything through.
A country has to have it's citizens working together, cooperating. As for property it was realized it wasn't an unalienable right. While I don't believe people's homes should be taken for commercial enterprises, as have happened in some cases, I also don't believe a person should be allowed to prevent a highway from being constructed in a straight line because the home owner wants the highway to curve around his property.
As populations increase frequently one right will conflict with another right. That's why the Constitution has to be a "living document". It has to adjust or be interpreted taking reality into consideration.
A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT.
We still come back to the reality of my choice being true freedom, and your choice leading to tyranny.
I look at your total scenario as if I were in East Germany in 1979. I don't belong!!!!!,,, and all I have to do is get over the wall. But there is no wall.
You're a supporter of no real rights for the individual. And this fact is blatant.
You're form of gov't would tell a doctor where he could practice, and if he could even go to school to be a doctor.
Everybody would have to go through a bureaucrat to get to their pursuit of happyness.
I could go on and on, but why? Socialism is a cancer.
The facts are everywhere.
apple0154
MEOW
When discussing social programs people always bring up countries like Germany (Hitler), Russia, Cuba, etc. and then say, "See, socialism is bad." The problem is people who ran or are running those countries either came to power through revolution or stopped free elections once in power.
When we look at countries that are considered socialist today (a number of Western European countries) we see a much different picture.
It appears your definition of "pursuit of happiness" is the right to financially rip off people. I can understand that as that's exactly how things worked under Greenspan.
Check out "The warning" at http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ OR
The bottom line is Greenspan didn't want to prosecute fraud. His logic was when enough people got ripped off they would invest in something else. The invisible hand of the market or, more accurately known as, the invisible hand of rip-off artists.
Yes, I do believe people should have to go through some sort of qualifying procedure when opening a business. Do you have any idea how many small businesses fold in the first year or two? If such a business gives a guarantee, be it on a new roof or a new refrigerator, what happens when there is a problem? The scam is the businesses are usually LLC, or similar, meaning the only financial resources a scammed individual has access to is what the business has (tools, property, etc.) which, in many cases, is worthless. (A rented store front and a tool box.)
All the money the business has collected over the year(s) by installing faulty roofs and selling defective appliances is kept by the owner and used to pay his home mortgage, car payments, etc. There needs to be a law similar to drug laws where any assets purchased with that money is able to be seized.
It's time to change the "buyer beware" axiom to "seller beware". Some jurisdictions now require a seller sign a guarantee when selling a home or formally refuse. If they do sign a guarantee and structural defects are found the buyer can sue the seller.
Unfortunately, times have changed. Honor, dignity, the idea one's reputation depended on honest business dealings are rare today. Now it's open a business, rip off as many as possible, grab as much cash as possible, then declare the business bankrupt and move on to another.
Let's not forget when the idea of freedom was discussed over 200 years ago justice dealing with rip-off artists was quick and, sometimes, deadly. It's almost encouraged today and certainly wasn't discouraged under Greenspan.
That was a big factor in the financial crisis. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress he had been wrong for all those years concerning his financial beliefs.
Check out the free video and let me know if the right or freedom to rip others off is your idea of freedom.
EDIT: I noticed the video shown is not complete. Check out http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ from 16:00 minutes to 18:00 minutes. Those two minutes sum up the video.
Last edited:
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
There's no example in history of socialism ever working. Todays European States that are socialist are getting a small taste of what's to come.
I've been saying that our economy is going to calapse for yrs. Because of socialism starting with the 16th amendment. We haven't been a true capitalist society for years, but the marxist say the problems we face are do to capitalism. No,,, it's because of socialism. Socialism brings us poverty, and does away with rights.
The rip-offs that you refer to come from big corperations paying off socialist politicians to give them a monopoly of sorts. Making it hard for the little guy like me to compete.
What's crazy is it sounds like you believe that the republicans have been for capitalism, and they've given us this problem because of capitalism. The republican politicians are as socialist as the democrats. Based on the last hundred yrs as history shows. And socialism today here in america is doing what it always does. Destroying what ever it touches.
It all comes down to the basic fact that you support a mandate. I support choice. I want government to stop taking from me so that I can support myself all the days of my life. You want government to take from me so that you can have the government take care of you. With my wealth.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Apple, you're complete inability to move beyond materialism is what's wrong with your arguments. The American Founders were not leftists, and hence, absolutely nothing about their worldview was in any way driven by materialism. The Natural Rights that constitute American liberty are grounded in principle. Principles such as civic virtue, ordered liberty, belief in a higher power and purpose, and honor.
Stop looking at this matter through materialist prisms, such as class warfare and welfare bureaucracy. People experience liberty through independence and self-determination, also known as equality of opportunity. Not through equality of circumstance!
"The US Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself."
-Benjamin Franklin
Stop looking at this matter through materialist prisms, such as class warfare and welfare bureaucracy. People experience liberty through independence and self-determination, also known as equality of opportunity. Not through equality of circumstance!
"The US Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself."
-Benjamin Franklin
apple0154
MEOW
A taste of what's to come? The majority in all those countries referred to as Socialist support government run/controlled medical. Not only isn't there one country which reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system, remembering all countries started out that way, but there isn't one country that has any significant political force campaigning on going back to such an archaic system. Simply stated, the population of every country with a government run/controlled medical system insists such a system remain and many of those systems have been in operation for 50 or more years. Not a bad record for something that supposedly does not work.
In many cases the little guy can't compete because he does not have the resources/technology necessary. Whether it's building cars or making windows a person can not compete with automated production. Then there's the "folding up of business and going home" that small businesses do every day. Who pays for the cost of that?
It's not that the Repubs are as socialist and the Dems. It's the Dems are as capitalist as the Repubs.
On the world scale both Repubs and Dems are 110% capitalist. I want government to prevent people from ripping off others. Choice is fine, however, I want to be sure when one claims to be a doctor he really is a doctor and when one claims to be a roofer he really is a roofer and both people have a lot to lose if they cheat people.
Imagine if doctors could simply declare bankruptcy like the owner of a window shop who has installed defective windows. The doctor sets up an office with rented equipment. He bungles an operation. He sends the equipment back, sublets his premises and that's it. He had no insurance and there is nothing of value to sue for. Is that the kind of society, the type of choice, to which you're referring?
As for the 16th Amendment there's some fine reading associated with that Amendment. For example, the Pollock case.
(Excerpt) (The Pollock case) In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain taxes on incomes — such as those from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.
In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds.....
(Pollock overruled) The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock.[25][26] That means the Congress may impose taxes on income from any source..... [End)
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png
Do you honestly think it's fair that those who received money from rental property, bonds, stocks and other investments shouldn't pay any income tax but those who worked for an hourly wage should? Once a person acquired enough money to live off their investments, no longer needing a regular job, they should not be obliged to pay taxes?
Any and all monies should be considered income. Any money a person receives is money coming in as opposed to money going out. The conditions before the 16th Amendment were grossly unfair.
Finally, the fair thing to do would be to tax all money received, from investments to capital gains to inheritances. Who can argue it's fair to tax the wages one earns by the sweat of their brow (I like that expression) but exempt money received through little or no work on their part such as increased property values?
Look at the individuals who benefited from the Real Estate bubble. What actual work did any of those folks do that contributed to the increase in their investment? Yet, they screamed when taxed on the money they received even though, individually, they had nothing to do with the increase.
Of this, I know personally. When I sold my modest Real Estate holdings, prior to the bubble collapsing, a close friend or two commented on the injustice of my having to pay income tax on a portion of it. (The selling price is easily obtained on the net.)
Why would I be upset? I did absolutely nothing to warrant the huge increase in value so the question becomes what would be the better system to live under. Is it preferable to live in a society where I hoard that money in case I become ill in the future or live in a society where a portion of my unexpected gains are given to the government to be used by people who require it now and should I become ill in the future my health care, in turn, will be subsidized by the government through others doing what I did?
I prefer the second option.