Posted on 04/27/2007 7:32:08 PM PDT by Simi Valley Tom
You read what is not there and then ignore what is really there.
No one at all is opposed to private charity.
Private charities can do 1000 times the work with the same dollar that the government tries to do and botches.
When you by point of gun take away more than 50% of a man/woman’s income you have enslaved him.
When you by forcing another man to neglect his own family for the sake of a corrupt system you have not helped the poor but you have done great damage to the man enslaved.
You are arguing from a false premise.
You are entitled to ignore the real world if you like. You are entitled to pretend that your system actually makes anything better when there is evidence is super abundant evidence that it has only worsened the problem.
You never solve a problem unless you correctly identify the problem, the source and continually evaluate the effectiveness of the solution.
Ok, we have the hypocrite pompous strawman argument.
I don't see the problem.
Is it Reagan? Or is is Memorex?
I'm still waiting for you to show me what's wrong with it.
Take your time.
Correct. But that does not empower the government to spend the tax money anyway they like. Charity is not one of the ways they are supposed to spend it.
I only split it because your argument hangs from it. Without the logical equivalence of "government" and "people", your left with the losing proposition of arguing that federal programs work better then private charity.
So I'm not surprised you object to the distinction.
Your argument appears to be that the government is right and just in fostering poverty.
Right. That is exactly my argument.
LOL.
I'm left with no such thing. I never made this argument nor have I ever believed it.
So I'm not surprised you object to the distinction.
I never objected to this anywhere in any of my posts.
Perhaps you would quote the portion of the Constitution that forbids government charity.
Show me where I was EVER "arguing that federal programs work better then private charity."
Show me my words.
YOU CAN'T because I NEVER have.
I don't even believe such a thing.
Try reading what I actually post instead of assigning me those positions you feel most comfortable arguing against.
Prior to the War On Poverty legislation, The poverty rate was a little over 22%.
government was not intended to rob peter to help paul, but to protect peter’s assets so that he may help paul of his own accord...
right now, government sets the limit of charity, which suffers because government takes a very big cut.
teeman
when government hands out money, it is an entitlement that is expected and accepted without shame or remorse that others are doing without... no gratitude to the people who actually give it to them.
shame is a good motivator to get one working.
teeman
Sorry, you have got it backwards. The 9th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So as far as the federal government is concerned, they don't have such power unless it is enumerated. So now perhaps you would quote the part of the Constitution that does this...
I didn't say you have. I was pointing out that you were avoiding having to do this by refusing to make a distinction between individuals and government.
I don't even believe such a thing.
Good. Its not a defensible position, so its not surprising your avoiding having to take it, by refusing to distinguish between individuals and government in the context of providing charity.
Try reading what I actually post instead of assigning me those positions you feel most comfortable arguing against.
Good advice. Sometimes I have messed up on what people were saying, and ended up taking back some of what I said. I don't think this is one of those times though. I think you misunderstood me this time.
Consider:
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...
Then consider the social unrest caused by high unemployment and poverty during the depression.
Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
Rather, they would have used a word like "charity", or "for charitable contributions", or "for the poor". The term "general welfare" already applies to things that the feds were already empowered to do.
Also consider, that if we take a loose flexible interpretation of "general welfare", and if we consider that later Amendments over rule earlier ones where they are in conflict, then congress could claim it empowers them to do just about anything, as long as they feel it is for the "general welfare".
For instance, they could pass a law against the Christian bible because it upsets gay people. For the general welfare you understand. The first amendment swept aside, because it is conflict with "general welfare"...
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.