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.
Yes, it would have been rather hard for James Madison to lay his finger on that part of the Constitution -- specifically, Amendment XVI -- since that part of the Constitution wasn't ratified until 77 years after he died...
Bzzzzt.
The 16th amendment says nothing at all about spending.
No, they cannot. Nobody is stopping them to do more. People simply talk more, and act less.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
There are couple of problems with this. It doesn't bode well with your argument that I countered: "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."
Both examples you presented are state governments.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And any charity should be charity, not an investment, not conditional and not promoting a belief system.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
In fact, that was my problem with pretty much every adoption agency I came across a few months ago when considering foster/adoption here in Texas. Many of these agencies wanted me to become a member of a church from their list to qualify. I found one that did not put any conditions, just a guarantee that these children need home instead of the state government being the parent. If anything, it was disgusting behavior in the part of those agencies that put their terms and conditions above the welfare of these children. They are abusing, and using these children to meet their ends.
I cannot condone such actions.
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.
The 16th amendment says nothing at all about spending.
Nice try.
Right.
What is says is how to acquire the "the money of their constituents", which is what James Madison was talking about being spent.
Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger
on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending,
on the objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents."
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.
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.
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.
"Redistribution of the wealth" is just a really bad terminology for the attempt by the people through their elected government to create a "More just" society. Looking at things through an historical perspective we can very easily see that the unregulated "Free enterprise system" is unjust and ugly to the extreme. When attempts to make a more just system out of it have failed, the reaction by the oppressed majority has been an extreme reaction leading to revolution, civil war and the distruction of the free enterprise system completely.
In order for our system to survive successfully in the long term it is vital that the system works for all the stakeholders in that system. Not just the owners utilizing what is little better than slave labour in order to create riches for themselves that exceed many Kings. On the other hand it can not be overbalanced in the other direction towards the workers to the point where it stifles investment, development, innovation and self improvement thus causing the system to collapse. We have seen this happen many times in places like post WW2 UK. Things got worse and worse until Thatcher brought some balance back into the whole mix.
In the application to the USA we see nothing new at all. The oligarchy, moneymasters, owners and financial aristocracy,{those with huge inherited fortunes} resist any movement toward a more just society. These people are probably 2% of the population or less but continue to direct the direction of the country to a great degree. As history has taught us these people consider raising the minimum wage to a living standard, redistribution of the wealth, the same thing with workmans comp. social housing, all government healthcare schemes, public education of all kinds ETC ETC.
It's a very self distructive ideology. It reminds me of the guy who killed the golden goose. It should be in their highest interest to see the living standards of the majority of the people as high as possible but alas they are too blind to see that. I would wager that if the minimum wage was doubled tomorrow these economic elite would still be ultra wealthy. The market for their goods and services would have multiplied many times over and it's possible they would make more $$$ than ever.
Couldn't have said it better. A rational, balanced and nonhysterical view.
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.
Taxation can be abusive and descend to the level of theft, but it is not theft by definition. Governments have a right to tax and their subjects have a duty to pay.
As for people receiving things they didn't earn, be careful ... "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." Doesn't that worry you just a bit?
The US is the right place to be if you are for the redistribution of wealth.
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.
