[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Miss_Chybil

Now, this I can agree with. Does that mean we don't have to pay for wars we don't want, or give welfare to countries who don't need it, and we can keep our National Guard to guard our own nation and if we decide to tax ourselves to cover things such as healthcare we can do that? Oh, but what about states that don't have any money? Do they just dry up and blow away? Maybe, we could sign them over to Mexico?

Wait a sec: you object to providing taxation for wars you don't want, but I must pay taxes for charity I don't want?

Hmmmmmm...

It seems like, instead of using the gov't to protect citizens from the abuses of gov't, this is an idea of an interventionist gov't, but only interventionist in ways WE want. So, it becomes important to only have people LIKE US in office.

Of course, that can't lead to anything like a polarized national debate. Or, could it?

Less gov't is best.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Wait a sec: you object to providing taxation for wars you don't want, but I must pay taxes for charity I don't want?

Hmmmmmm...

Like I said earlier, people have different values.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by DeeAngel

It is the very fact that society does take care of what parents can't or won't that encourages parents to not limit the number of children they have. Why should they,
they can breed like crazy and the taxpayers will take care of things for them. There MUST be an incentive created for people to not reproduce.

And what do you suggest we do with these children in the meantime? Let them die of malnutrition? Condemn them to living in cardboard shacks (and then, of course, refusing medical care when they inevitably contract asthma or TB?) There are always going to be people who milk the system, whether it is having another baby so they get a bigger assistance check or gauging gasoline prices to pad their bank account (not talking about anyone in particular, Mr. Vice President Sir).

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Less gov't is best.

~faith,
Timothy.

Could you explain what YOU think the role of the government should be?

[HM2Viking]

. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.

Addressing persistent childhood poverty is not charity. From an economic analysis alone it makes sense to intervene and help these children and their families develop the skills that they need to achieve and succeed in our society. But from a values standpoint it is more important to do this because it is the right thing to do. Which future has the greatest benefit to society?

Option A
A parent who takes a job punching a register at a store because any job is better than no job (who qulaifies for EITC, food stamps, section 8 reduced school lunches, child care assistance)
Option B
A parent who has real job skills that allows her to work at a job that earns a real living wage and doesn't need or any of these programs?

Children who grow up in option B are much less likely to become parents who use option A. We have to think beyond our own parochial narrow interests and think about what kind of future we are building.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Could you explain what YOU think the role of the government should be?

Easy.

The Constitution limits the Federal gov't to a few enumerated powers. I would limit the role of the Federal gov't to those powers, AND ONLY THOSE POWERS:

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's it.

Hint: charity and gov't restricted healthcare do not appear on this list.

If you read the Federalist papers and contemporaneous quotes, the framers intended for this list to be interpreted very narrowly. It was intended to box up the powers of gov't. Indeed, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued AGAINST a bill of rights because it was unnecessary as the gov't had no power to do any of the things prevented by the bill of rights, in any case. Indeed, Hamilton feared that a bill of rights would give the gov't the crazy thought that it actually had the powers not specifically limited within that bill of rights. Perish the thought!

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence declare to the heavens that our rights belong to individual citizens, and not the gov't. Indeed, more than that, those documents affirm that they are rights granted to the individual, not from gov't, but by Heaven itself! The bill of rights is just a start of the limitations placed upon gov't. They are limited to only operate narrowly within the confines of the above enumerated powers. Why? To preserve your rights.

Read Federalist 84 as a civics lesson today. It speaks wonders to the issues before us today:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_84.html

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Addressing persistent childhood poverty is not charity. From an economic analysis alone it makes sense to intervene and help these children and their families develop the skills that they need to achieve and succeed in our society. But from a values standpoint it is more important to do this because it is the right thing to do. Which future has the greatest benefit to society?

Option A
A parent who takes a job punching a register at a store because any job is better than no job (who qulaifies for EITC, food stamps, section 8 reduced school lunches, child care assistance)
Option B
A parent who has real job skills that allows her to work at a job that earns a real living wage and doesn't need or any of these programs?

Children who grow up in option B are much less likely to become parents who use option A. We have to think beyond our own parochial narrow interests and think about what kind of future we are building.

Encouraging the subsistance of children born into proverty in such a way as to maintain poverty only encourages more poverty. It allows for the easy procreation of such children, but doesn't allow for an avenue for the children we are encouraging, by policy, to escape poverty.

The great society is a failure, not because enough money wasn't pumped into it. Trillions of dollars and 40 yrs later, it's a failure because it did little more than encourage subsistance in poverty.

This is the message we've sent: "Here's your check, now stay out of our economy, and our society." I just don't find that to be compassionate.

Throwing a few bucks at a person might expiate some amount of guilt, but it fixes nothing. Personally, I would favor helping someone out of poverty rather than patting my back for making poverty more tolerable.

Giving somebody ANYTHING without teaching them how to get it for themselves is - and always will be - a short term bandaid. It's not compassionate, to be sure.

Ultimately, the problem with the Great Society is that it starts with the assumption that people shouldn't be responsible for themselves. That is a dreadful attack on the internal fortitude to pull oneself up out of poverty. "Don't worry yourselves: you aren't responsible and Uncle Daddy will be there for you." That is a recipe FOR poverty; not a pathway out of it.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

I read this article recently, on point - sort of.

It was complaining about the current generation of luxury laden, unappreciative brats.

The article had the novel idea that it's Mr. Rogers' fault.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...840657463.html

After all, we've spent their entire youths telling this generation how special they are. "You're special". No wonder none of them think the rules apply to them. Why should that be the case, they're 'special'.

The author went on to state that maybe, instead of spending all our time telling today's youth how special they are, maybe we should have spent some time telling them there's lots of room for improvement!

The same can be said about our poverty issues. We've spent 40 yrs telling the poor how it's not their fault. Maybe we should have been spending some time telling them that they - and only they - can pull themselves up out of poverty.

The gov't can't do that, for anybody. Prosperity is a state of mind.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Easy.

The Constitution limits the Federal gov't to a few enumerated powers. I would limit the role of the Federal gov't to those powers, AND ONLY THOSE POWERS:

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's it.

Hint: charity and gov't restricted healthcare do not appear on this list.

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence declare to the heavens that our rights belong to individual citizens, and not the gov't. Indeed, more than that, those documents affirm that they are rights granted to the individual, not from gov't, but by Heaven itself! The bill of rights is just a start of the limitations placed upon gov't. They are limited to only operate narrowly within the confines of the above enumerated powers. Why? To preserve your rights.

I believe the general welfare of the United States is very dependent on its citizens being healthy and fed.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." ( Matthew 6:19-21)

"You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." ( Mark 10:21)

"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." ( Luke 12:15)

"The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, ' I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God." ( Luke 12:16-21)

http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/jesus...gtreasures.php

I'm always amazed that the people who holler the most about God and country, want to make sure "God" stays on our money, are the ones who are most afraid they might have to pay for someone's food and medicine and yet - as I said earlier - have no problem paying for war.

Now, does this mean I believe we should all give up everything we've earned and give it to those who are less fortunate? If I followed the Bible, how could I not? I don't, though, and I admit it. I'm an agnostic and a humanist. Your assertion to the heavens, which may or may not be there, and which may or may not have been a reference to the Christian faith compelled me to bring up such things as these spoken by the greats of history. I believe it is the purpose of government to ensure the general welfare of our country - within limits. None of us should be expected to give up all we've earned and own in order that we should all have the same things in life. I'm not a communist. We should all be expected to pitch in, though, on the health of our nation, if not for humanitarian or religious reasons, at least, for our own security.

I don't know how this should be accomplished. Should insurance companies not be allowed to price their sick customers out of insurance? Should states handle their own insurance? Should we have a national healthcare system? I don't know the answer but we need to find it.

People who are able to work and work, should make a living wage.

People who are sick should be cared for.

People who are hungry should be fed.

We can do better and I'm sure we can do better well. We are Americans, after all.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Miss_Chybil

I believe the general welfare of the United States is very dependent on its citizens being healthy and fed.

Actually, not true. It was very dependent on the Citizens having the freedom FROM gov't to succeed or fail, as they will. The General Welfare clause cannot be construed as to allow anything Congress wishes. The Constitution itself, makes it perfectly clear that it has enumerated specific powers in order to establish the general welfare, and that Congress may NOT operate outside those limits, in any means, to accomplish any goal not specifically listed.

Charity and Gov't restricted healthcare are not among those powers:

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." - President Thomas Jefferson

U.S. Supreme Cabal: McCulloch v. Maryland, regarding the 'necessary and proper' clause: The Cabal defined this as Congress may enact legislation within the powers (1) specifically enumerated by Article I, Section 8 and (2) that which reasonably "necessary and proper" in "carrying into execution" these powers and those elsewhere listed to Congress in the constitution (ie. certain amendments). In other words, Congress is strictly defined to very specifically enumerated powers and that which draws a reasonable relationship to these specific powers as a "means" of carrying into play their execution.

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms [i.e. the terms “general welfare” and “necessary and proper”] be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions [i.e. the specific Art.1, Section 8 delineations of power] be denied any significance whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." - James Madison, Federalist #41.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." - James Madison, 1792

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

As before observed? Yes, by a monarchy we had just won independence from! The contruction of the general welfare clause to mean anything, in effect, turns the Federal Gov't into a Monarch, and a tyrant, at that. THIS is what we rebelled against, and this is what we must avoid repeating: that is what Jefferson is saying. Kings always believe they are acting paternally in your best interests. That doesn't make them any less tyrants.

"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"To consider the [general welfare clause]...as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they [Congress] please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up strictly within the enumerated powers." - Thomas Jefferson.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

Simply put, a gov't empowered to do all good is a government empowered to do all evil. Freedom has tradeoffs, to be sure. But the greatest opportunity for all Americans, even the poorest of the poor, is for the gov't to step aside and let them pursue their own life, liberty and happiness. Those are inherent rights, yes. But, they are also responsibilities. No matter how noble you believe gov't can be, it cannot supplant that responsibility to one's self.

THAT is why trillions of dollars later, the war on poverty is a worse failure than the war in Iraq. . .

~faith,
Timothy.