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.
The princple that the rich are to pay for the poor VIA government force is the princple I think we are speaking of. The corner stone of good government is to protect liberty not to identify classes of people to single out based on voting blocks.
The cornerstone of good government is to provide for the common good. Liberty is sometimes a friend of the common good, and sometimes an enemy. In order to have a vision of what government should and shouldn't be doing, you need an authoritative philosophy of government and a reasonable conception of what the common good looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll
Besides if you believe in this who does the middle class support?
Shouldn't they support policies that promote the common good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll
Taxes are to pay for the basic functions of government, law, order, military and promoting and protecting liberty. As per the constitution this is really its only FUNCTION. No corporate or social welfare these programs came from progressives who believed its was the GOVERNMENTS DUTY to take care of these functions.
The Constitution itself has little to say about what government should and shouldn't do in terms of specifics. It's restrictions applied primarily to the federal government until the judiciary began to make mischief with the 14th amendment and the commerce clause. The states have always been free to tax and spend as they see fit.
The cornerstone of good government is to provide for the common good.
Wrong as usual.
The cornerstone of good government is its written constitution. That charter may have other names, but always takes the form of a document that lays out what the government can and cannot do.
It's up to the people who wrote and ratified it, to put "good" things in it. If they don't, they can change it later.
Our constitution contains a list of things the Fed govt is given authority to do. All oher things are forbidden to the Fed.
One of the things not included, is authority to do "anything that helps people".
The people of our country could change that if they wanted to. In more than 200 years, they have made a number of changes to the document... but chosen not to change that one.
Liberals just can't get over that fact. And so they spend endless amounts of time trying to get around it, circumvent it, or just plain ignore it, trying to force their version of utopia on the rest of us even after we specifically, and repeatedly, forbade it.
...which is not authorized to it by the Constitution, and so is forbidden for the Fed govt to do.
Silly you! Just keep hoping that the left will remember the 9th and the 10th amendments, and how they lay out in full glory how if it ain't enumerated the Fed cain't do it uhcuzzin' it's the people's and the states' power first.
Yes, I intentionally "spelt" it like that, hoping maybe THAT will help those on the left understand.
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.
True, I was hopping around a bit. 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.
There is no such thing as charity without a belief system! 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.
There will of course be conditions. If I know that a certain recipient is misusing the assistance I have been providing, perhaps I will stop providing it. I might even have a duty to stop providing it. There is no such thing as purely unconditional giving.
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. Failing that, they should expand beyond their religious preferences. But under no circumstances should children be placed with people who are openly living immoral lives, and whose immorality will certainly corrupt those children spiritually and possibly harm them physically.
Who is to detemine what is immoral?
That is a thing of the past.
You must have attended school a very long time go.
Societal interactions and civil responsibilities and tolerance are much better taught nowadays.
All must be accepted under the big tent.
The Education Department has a thought out plan to improve false outlooks.
The good old days never really were.
The cornerstone of good government is to provide for the common good. Liberty is sometimes a friend of the common good, and sometimes an enemy. In order to have a vision of what government should and shouldn't be doing, you need an authoritative philosophy of government and a reasonable conception of what the common good looks like.
Actually...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801
What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which 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, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
More importantly, that is the foundation of our government.
'Redistribution of wealth' is a just another way of saying 'taxation.' Seriously. I'm glad you're in favor of something written into the Constitution.
Yes, no taxation without representation. The problem is our representatives are representing special interests and lobbyists, rather than "We the People"
Originally Posted by freemkt
Some conservatives believe there's nothing wrong in practice to tax the working class in order to help the wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
You beat me to the punch. Just substitute "some" for "many" or "most."
How can you be so ignorant of the truth? By your definition most conservatives would have to be wealthy, rendering liberalism an ideology of the poor.... oh! NM
And I would posit that welfare recipients are utilizing tax slaves to create riches for themselves that they have not earned.
Here we have a typical attack on those who are in need, are sick, have lost their employment, are incapable of working for one reason or another. It's truely disgusting that you can have so many people who are so small, so incapable of putting themselves in another's shoes.
THIS KIND OF THINKING IS SO FAR FROM REALITY THAT YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHAT WORLD THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN.
This is very easily seen in the phrase used in the post, "Create riches for themselves". Like, just WOW.
The reality actually is that welfare cases live well below the poverty line and if there are any riches involved they surely are not seeing any.
The biggest fault in any social program anywhere is the administration and delivery of the system and also the design of the system it's self. If being on some kind of social assistence pays a lot better than working, if it actually gives the recipient far more security and benefits then who can blame the person who decides that for the good of their family they avail themselves of such a system. Social systems should have the goal of weaning people off the system by, in some way equipping these clients to be sble to provide a basic standard of living for themselves.
Here in Canada we have many programmes that greatly benefit the working poor. Although these programmes are great at helping people to live above the poverty line they would not need them in the first place if their employers paid them a living wage. So what we have in reality is a subsidy for tightfisted employers who at times make millions upon millions in profits only because they recieve an indirect helping hand from the taxpayers. In my opinion if your employees can't meet their basic needs by working for you then your business is not viable. For that reason I will never shop at Walmart. They are making billions and yet pay minimun wage to most employees. There are many other chains here that are union shops and I shop there because the people are treated like human beings with NEEDS.
I just got home from shopping at the Great Canadian Superstore. The people who work there are great. They do a good job and are really outstanding in even the lowest positions. Guess what? This is a union shop and even the lowest guy on the totem pole make a living.
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.
