Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you would be wrong. I would say that every elderly person who is on Medicare, no matter his/her contributions to support what could potentially run into six digit, if not seven, to give them the social safety net, HAS contributed to the society in one way or the other.
Medicare isn't welfare. It's a government social insurance program to which one must have paid premiums to for at least a minimum length of time (10 years or 40 quarters) in order to be eligible to receive benefits.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
Its pretty simple, people who benefit from redistribution love the idea. Unfortunately, those who don't think that they are being robbed.
OK, the way I understand your views you have no problem taking away from somebody that earned his money and give it to someone that did not earn it. I usually call that legal theft. Take care.
When you look at our system, everyone is feeding someone else higher or lower than them. Just the way it works. Also, truly "earned" income is quite different from investment income...the latter on a humongous scale for those who do not, or never, worked due to being able to live off their investments. That is precisely where the unfair advantage is. All the wealthiest people in the world did not make their living off a working class job. The playing field has never been level. The top keep soaring higher and higher; the middle and bottom keep sinking slow but sure. BTW, where are all the jobs the barely taxed wealthy are supposed to be creating?
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
Did you do anything to earn a better wage? Do you handle your personal finance like a responsible person or did you spend tomorrows income on junk? Did you even try to start your own business so you too can be successful? Of course you didn't. Then you think your opinion matters lol
When you look at our system, everyone is feeding someone else higher or lower than them. Just the way it works. Also, truly "earned" income is quite different from investment income, and the latter on a humongous scale for those who do not, or never, worked due to being able to live off their investments. That is precisely where the unfair advantage is. All the wealthiest people in the world did not make their living off a working class job. The playing field has never been level. The top keep soaring higher and higher; the middle and bottom keep sinking slow but sure.
People at the $200K/$250K level typically work for their money. But hey, make it so it's no longer worth working.
You don't even recognize that Obama calls $250K millionaires and billionaires. Talk about fuzzy 1st grade level math.
What is says is how to acquire the "the money of their constituents", which is what James Madison was talking about being spent.
No, he was talking about it being acquired, as you yourself point out here. Did you miss the part of English 101 where the teacher explained the difference between "acuiring" and "spending"?
Quote:
Whether you can't comprehend this, or you're just being obtuse because an honest discussion is something of which you are incapable, I neither know nor care.
Those two mental deficiencies frequently go together. Especially in persons of the liberal persuasion, where they seem to be mandatory.
Next you'll try to tell me that Madison objected to the taxation power he wrote into the Constitution himself, which applies just as much to "the money of the constitutents" as does the 16th amendment... has has just as little mention of spending.
Did somebody mention "obtuseness"? Or dishonesty in discussion?
There is one difference between the taxation part of the Constitution (article 1 Sec. 8) and the 16th amendment, though. While the amendment mentions only collecting taxes while neither empowering nor restricting spending, the original taxation clause is followed by language which specifies what that tax money can be spent on... and RESTRICTING it only to defense, payment of existing debts, and spending only on programs that benefit all Americans equally (the definition of "General welfare" at that time). Spending on individual or special interests, is conspicuously NOT authorized to the government, and is thereby banned to the Fed.
The 16th amendment, on the other hand, never mentioned spending at all. It only mentioned a new basis for collecting tax money. And so, it left spending to be determined by older, existing parts of the Cosntitution: The Art. 1 Sec. 8 passage I pointed out, which empowers Congress to spend tax money only in a few restricted areas.
Needless to say, the restrictions manated by the so-called "Welfare clause" , are one of the most violated parts of the Constitution today.
Did you do anything to earn a better wage? Do you handle your personal finance like a responsible person or did you spend tomorrows income on junk? Did you even try to start your own business so you too can be successful? Of course you didn't. Then you think your opinion matters lol
heh heh...surely you joke. The wealth we are talking about is hardly wealth earned by a wage.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
Well said - I agree entirely.
These distinctions are indeed important, but I'm afraid lost on almost everyone who will comment here.
And yes, at the moment much of the GOP does sound like selfish greedy idiots. Someone really ought to be taking this point seriously, amidst all the navel-gazing, circular shooting-party recriminations. Romney didn't lose only because he isn't Hispanic or brown-skinned.
They don't need to do any more because the federal government is doing it for them. Nevertheless, we still give food away and will continue to do so.
People into charity don't look for excuses. Either they do it, or they don't. I just donated a lot of old clothes and stuff last weekend. Did I care about whether government is doing anything for them? Heck, I hope it does.
Quote:
But the principle is the same. Subsidiarity is violated when the federal government does things that state governments can do better, and when state governments do things that private charities can do better.
And two examples you could present, were about state governments not doing it right (in your opinion). So I ask again, like what? As a citizen of the USA and resident of Texas, I personally don't see inherently bad federal government and guaranteed good local/state government. I simply take government as an institution that ought to be kept on its toes, and accountable. Assuming that state government is automatically good would be foolishness. Or, as James Madison put it during his presentation of the Bill of Rights:
"I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against."
Quote:
There is no such thing as charity without a belief system!
I also donated to a local shelter yesterday. What belief system do you think it involved?
Quote:
The very idea of giving to the poor - one of the corporal works of mercy long promoted by the Church - is a moral precept. To insist that religious charities should act on one moral precept but leave aside all the others is absurd. And it's impossible in any case.
When a regular at Sunday school in the 1980s, I was taught about trying to do the impossible and without expecting cheers. To do good things, anonymously. Perhaps my church did believe in this (Matthew 6:2-4):
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you"
Being a part of that idea, always instilled pride in me and that was as a child. I would rather be bad mouthed as someone who doesn't give charity than someone who gives A LOT (not just old stuff) in exchange for being called "great".
That is what is wrong with charitable institutions. That is something that has pushed me away from volunteering for MANY charities that make religion an integral part. They are marketing a product, instead of putting needy above everything else. So no, you cannot convince me to accept that religious charities need to be taken at face value and without ever questioning them or their premise.
Quote:
I disagree. Those agencies will find the kind of homes for children they are looking for. A Christian adoption agency should make finding Christian homes for children a priority.
I don't call them Christian. I call them Abusive. I call them Marketeers. Their priority is not the children but religious preaching and expansion. I detest the idea. Don't expect me to support their whims, much less unconditionally. All the more reason why government should not be in the business of trusting religious organizations to care about people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
