Clinton Unable to Save Sink from Obamacare in FL Election

You justify it the same way you justify any other action in a Democracy. You vote on it. If most people feel the way you do, and they don’t by the way, then the poor suffer and starve. If, on the other hand, most people feel that we live in a rich enough nation that we should not countenance people starving in the streets, and going without adequate shelter and medical care, then you’ll be on the losing end of that vote.

As for being “forced”, yes, you will pay your taxes, as voted upon by the majority, or you’ll eventually end up in jail. That’s part of living in a country governed by laws. And healthcare isn’t a constitutional right, but that doesn’t mean that laws can’t be passed ensuring that the destitute don’t get it.

As for “enough” becoming “Enough,” we went past that point long ago, and I agree that we need to cut the federal government way, way, back in scope and size. I just question your choice of priorities, and I suspect I wouldn’t be the only one to question them.

You justify it the same way you justify any other action in a Democracy.

What "Democracy" would that be? This is a constitutional republic.

You vote on it. If most people feel the way you do, and they don’t by the way, then the poor suffer and starve.

Yeah, who cares about enumerated powers, private property, and no standing army? That's all so passe. /s

If, on the other hand, most people feel that we live in a rich enough nation that we should not countenance people starving in the streets, and going without adequate shelter and medical care, then you’ll be on the losing end of that vote.

People weren't starving in the streets before there were food stamps. You sound just like a Democrat. Earth to Norseman: People fed their neighbors when they were hungry. My grandparents sat a half-dozen or more at their table every night. At that time, 25% of American households had servants' quarters. When charity was the coin of the public welfare, we were a richer country.

As for being “forced”, yes, you will pay your taxes, as voted upon by the majority, or you’ll eventually end up in jail. That’s part of living in a country governed by laws.

Laws you say? Well let's take a look at that. The Supreme Law is the Constitution. Here is what its principal architect had to say on this topic:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794 Hence, the "laws" upon which you rely are unlawful. But let that not deter you in the covetous desire to use other people's money to make yourself feel magnanimous, just, and benevolent, thief.

And healthcare isn’t a constitutional right, but that doesn’t mean that laws can’t be passed ensuring that the destitute don’t get it.

Yes, it does. I don't care what Roberts says.

My "priority" in this vein is to see the mechanics of charity work as they once did, MOTIVATING the able poor to better themselves. The system you advocate does the opposite.

Yes, it’s a constitutional republic. It’s also governed by democratic means. They aren’t mutually exclusive terms.

Who’s picking on private property? Anyone who taxes it? You think a government can exist without taxation of any form? Where does that Utopia (or more likely anarchy) exist?

Yes, people were starving before there were food stamps. And yes, private charity filled most of those stomachs at the time. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have starved without private charity, and you have no idea whether or not some actually did starve, do you? At a minimum, during the Great Depression, many were underfed and malnourished. You want to return to a time when hoboes relied upon secret signs on fences to indicate who the charitable were, and who to avoid? Really?

You think we were wealthier because more families had servants? What about the servants? Why were so many people willing to work so cheaply that the average family could afford to hire them? Did they think we were a wealthy society? And were we, really, just because we could find someone to work that we could afford to hire. That’s a strange, and very limited, definition of wealth.

Then you quote James Madison to justify calling me a thief, so enough already. You obviously just want to pontificate, not discuss rationally. But I do love the way people like you saddle the high horse and call everyone who disagrees with them on any particular issue everything from thief to liberal to Democrat without the slightest notion of what we really stand for.

Yes, it’s a constitutional republic. It’s also governed by democratic means. They aren’t mutually exclusive terms.

There are exclusions when it comes to the government's constitutionally limited powers. The public cannot merely "vote" to increase those powers with which to get the goodies. There is an extended amendment process, which has not been invoked for this purpose. Hence, the welfare state as we know it is illegal.

Yes, people were starving before there were food stamps.

Document that.

You want to return to a time when hoboes relied upon secret signs on fences to indicate who the charitable were, and who to avoid?

San Francisco spends $165 million a year on services for homeless people, but all that money hasn't made a dent in the homeless population in at least nine years.

Poor people are useful to the Slave Party. They vote for pols who then get to make illegal deals on behalf of their benefactors. That is why the Democrats are the party of the extremely rich.

At a minimum, during the Great Depression, many were underfed and malnourished.

How many starved? Write it down with sources sirrah. Moreover, there are more people who in some respects are malnourished now, only they are obese. Guess which one is more hazardous long term? Guess where those many of those kids eat breakfast and lunch?

You think we were wealthier because more families had servants?

If you start putting words into my mouth this conversation is over. The poor found jobs. They were fed. They were housed. They were productive. They were taught skills with which to climb the ladder. That increased wealth. What you want destroys it.

Why were so many people willing to work so cheaply that the average family could afford to hire them?

Because those doing the hiring didn't have to deal with Social Security, MediCare, and the local housing bureaucrats. Nor did the poor have a government tenement waiting as long as they voted for the welfare plantation.

Then you quote James Madison to justify calling me a thief, so enough already.

No, I quoted James Madison to prove that your bogus assertion that the democratically enacted "laws" that supposedly permit the forced confiscation of private property for the supposed public welfare are in fact illegal. You just don't like it that I posted the facts.

But I do love the way people like you saddle the high horse and call everyone who disagrees with them on any particular issue everything from thief to liberal to Democrat without the slightest notion of what we really stand for.

| BWA HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW!!!

I knew where you were coming from when I believed that kind of crap thirty years ago. I have since learned better. You hate what the welfare system has become but you pretend that it is superior to what preceded it. It is not. It has destroyed families. Why? Because it profits those in charge, who paid handsomely for Mr. Kinsey to publish his fradulant "research." Why? Broken families produce competing claims, crime, and other contentions that increase the power of the state, employ scads of bureaucrats, police, lawyers, social workers, and other "fix-its." It produces a permanently indentured underclass. The cost of supporting it drags the middle class down too. Its overlords enact regulations supposedly for the public health and safety that in fact destroy their jobs, so that the wealthy sponsors of said regulations can make more money elsewhere. The entire democratic system is corrupted, and you love it.

Yes indeed, that apparently is what "we" stand for.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.