Does big government equal social justice???

[Sallow]

It appears to me that many of the constituency seem to view big government as the 'cure all' regarding social inequality. Both taxes & wealth redistribution seem to be the preferred avenues that the social equality crowd navigates to arrive at their expectations. I must ask though, IF big government does indeed bring forth true social equality how does the social equality crowd explain Former senator Ted Kennedy & senator John McCain??? I mean both senators mentioned were/are wealthy far beyond their government pay allotment by all assessments.
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, just curious how the big government crowd goes about rationalizing their love affair with big government.

The fastest growing economy in Europe is Sweden.

Money invested in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is what drives an economy.

Sweden is not the fastest growing economy in Europe.

They also aren't bailing out anyone.

 

[Sallow]

Government, in particular the federal government, is the only organization with the reach and the force to implement social justice as it is seen by the statists.

To them social equality has not been reached, so rich people contiue to exist. Also, most of the time, they are just FINE with certain people being able to keep thier wealth, they just want people who disagree with them politically to lose thier wealth, their voice, and thier rights.

What they don't mention is that there will always be a political overclass, and it is thier goal to BE that overclass once they get thier statist way.

Statist way?

The type of government we have ALLOWS for accumulation of weath and wealth retention.

No government..no wealth.

Try it some time.

You can have wealth with little government, you just need your own private army, a good walled compound, and a lack of an organized viable exterior threat.

You didnt really answer my statement, just went off on a "government is what makes people sucessful" rant.

You seem to forget that in countries like the ones you describe, the ones with little government, wealthy with large private armies and compounds..kidnapping is a cottage industry.

 

[Intense]

Its crazy how many of these right wing fools HATE the government our founders left us

The founders probably wouldn't recognize the government as it is today.

90% of thier responses to current federal programs would be "why aren't the states handling this?"

Yeah like George Washington..the same cat who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion..

Oh wait..

Or Alexander Hamilton who caused it. Damn Progressive Statist Control Freaks.

 

[martybegan]

Its crazy how many of these right wing fools HATE the government our founders left us

The founders probably wouldn't recognize the government as it is today.

90% of thier responses to current federal programs would be "why aren't the states handling this?"

Yeah like George Washington..the same cat who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion..

Oh wait..

The whiskey rebelllion was against a new federal tax, which was properly apportioned to the states based on the produced whiskey, as intended by the framers. it was the first test of overall federal power to raise funds, which was sucessful. The lack of fund raising is what killed the articles of confederation.

Why would the states have to collect a federal tax? They already collected thier own taxes.

 

[martybegan]

Statist way?

The type of government we have ALLOWS for accumulation of weath and wealth retention.

No government..no wealth.

Try it some time.

You can have wealth with little government, you just need your own private army, a good walled compound, and a lack of an organized viable exterior threat.

You didnt really answer my statement, just went off on a "government is what makes people sucessful" rant.

You seem to forget that in countries like the ones you describe, the ones with little government, wealthy with large private armies and compounds..kidnapping is a cottage industry.

What does that have to do with your original retort? I was answering your question, and you again go on another tangent.

In a previous thread I included you in a group of rational posters that i disagree politcally with, as opposed to Truthmatters, who is a mouth breathing idiot.

Your recent posts are moving you closer to the mouth breathing side, I suggest you up your game.

 

[Intense]

The founders probably wouldn't recognize the government as it is today.

90% of thier responses to current federal programs would be "why aren't the states handling this?"

Yeah like George Washington..the same cat who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion..

Oh wait..

The whiskey rebelllion was against a new federal tax, which was properly apportioned to the states based on the produced whiskey, as intended by the framers. it was the first test of overall federal power to raise funds, which was sucessful. The lack of fund raising is what killed the articles of confederation.

Why would the states have to collect a federal tax? They already collected thier own taxes.

The Whiskey Tax unfairly burdened small Distilleries, while giving special breaks to the Larger Companies, again, Progressivism encouraging Big Business, Centralization, National Reach, and easy Government Control, while eliminating Competition, and discouraging Small Enterprise. Hamilton Scam and Scheme 101.

 

[Intense]

You can have wealth with little government, you just need your own private army, a good walled compound, and a lack of an organized viable exterior threat.

You didnt really answer my statement, just went off on a "government is what makes people sucessful" rant.

You seem to forget that in countries like the ones you describe, the ones with little government, wealthy with large private armies and compounds..kidnapping is a cottage industry.

What does that have to do with your original retort? I was answering your question, and you again go on another tangent.

In a previous thread I included you in a group of rational posters that i disagree politcally with, as opposed to Truthmatters, who is a mouth breathing idiot.

Your recent posts are moving you closer to the mouth breathing side, I suggest you up your game.

Hey, the next round is on me, provided you are not drinking anything with fancy umbrellas or fruit in it.

 

[JWBooth]

Its crazy how many of these right wing fools HATE the government our founders left us

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]
Lying twit.

Nobody hates the government that our founders left us. Those on the right note that it hasn't existed since about 1850 +/- ten years. What they loathe is the bastardised monstrosity that has built up since 1865.

 

[editec]

Does big government equal social justice???

It could or could not provide social justice.

EXACTLY the same as SMALL governments might or might NOT be socially just

 

[martybegan]

Yeah like George Washington..the same cat who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion..

Oh wait..

The whiskey rebelllion was against a new federal tax, which was properly apportioned to the states based on the produced whiskey, as intended by the framers. it was the first test of overall federal power to raise funds, which was sucessful. The lack of fund raising is what killed the articles of confederation.

Why would the states have to collect a federal tax? They already collected thier own taxes.

The Whiskey Tax unfairly burdened small Distilleries, while giving special breaks to the Larger Companies, again, Progressivism encouraging Big Business, Centralization, National Reach, and easy Government Control, while eliminating Competition, and discouraging Small Enterprise. Hamilton Scam and Scheme 101.

While it wasnt ideal, it was the feds first attempt at a national, non tarriff style tax. They did get it wrong with the flat fee exception, but the proper response was not a insurrection.

Once they got rid of the flat fee concept, subsequent booze taxes became acceptable ways of funding the federal government.

 

[JWBooth]

The whiskey rebelllion was against a new federal tax, which was properly apportioned to the states based on the produced whiskey, as intended by the framers. it was the first test of overall federal power to raise funds, which was sucessful. The lack of fund raising is what killed the articles of confederation.

Why would the states have to collect a federal tax? They already collected thier own taxes.

The Whiskey Tax unfairly burdened small Distilleries, while giving special breaks to the Larger Companies, again, Progressivism encouraging Big Business, Centralization, National Reach, and easy Government Control, while eliminating Competition, and discouraging Small Enterprise. Hamilton Scam and Scheme 101.

While it wasnt ideal, it was the feds first attempt at a national, non tarriff style tax. They did get it wrong with the flat fee exception, but the proper response was not a insurrection.

Once they got rid of the flat fee concept, subsequent booze taxes became acceptable ways of funding the federal government.

Insurrection? Was that before or after an army was organised to force a bunch of farmers and backwoodsmen into compliance?

 

[Chris]

It appears to me that many of the constituency seem to view big government as the 'cure all' regarding social inequality. Both taxes & wealth redistribution seem to be the preferred avenues that the social equality crowd navigates to arrive at their expectations. I must ask though, IF big government does indeed bring forth true social equality how does the social equality crowd explain Former senator Ted Kennedy & senator John McCain??? I mean both senators mentioned were/are wealthy far beyond their government pay allotment by all assessments.
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, just curious how the big government crowd goes about rationalizing their love affair with big government.

The fastest growing economy in Europe is Sweden.

Money invested in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is what drives an economy.

I wouldn't trust this govt to invest in a church raffle ticket.. It's the arrogance that they are qualified to RUN and DIRECT everything from energy drinks to nuclear physics. That's the 537 ELECTED Washington officials OF WHICH YOU only get to vote for 5 of them...

The problem with big govt as the equalizer is that they don't know SHIT about stuff. Leftists expect that an energy policy is just something that Al Gore can come up with in the shower. It's a childish unrealistic expectation that GOVT could construct a meaningful and wise energy policy without KNOWING exactly what was in the LABS of every energy company in America. And they TRY to do that. They get carnal with industry because THEY HAVE TO --- unless they want to look like chumps when they draft a policy that becomes obsolete in 6 months.

You CANNOT have an equalizer that doesn't fornicate with the REAL creative forces in society. It DOES not work that way. If they are gonna claim a mandate to meddle in a particular market -- there is gonna be collusion..

I --- don't want the govt coming up with policy and subsidies without consulting industry. Do you? So the best thing to do is to LIMIT their ability to meddle in domestic economic issues.

Investing in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is not meddling.

It's common sense.

Spending $2 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste.

Obama won the Lybian war for only $1 billion.

It helps to have a smart president who works with our allies.

 

[flacaltenn]

The fastest growing economy in Europe is Sweden.

Money invested in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is what drives an economy.

I wouldn't trust this govt to invest in a church raffle ticket.. It's the arrogance that they are qualified to RUN and DIRECT everything from energy drinks to nuclear physics. That's the 537 ELECTED Washington officials OF WHICH YOU only get to vote for 5 of them...

The problem with big govt as the equalizer is that they don't know SHIT about stuff. Leftists expect that an energy policy is just something that Al Gore can come up with in the shower. It's a childish unrealistic expectation that GOVT could construct a meaningful and wise energy policy without KNOWING exactly what was in the LABS of every energy company in America. And they TRY to do that. They get carnal with industry because THEY HAVE TO --- unless they want to look like chumps when they draft a policy that becomes obsolete in 6 months.

You CANNOT have an equalizer that doesn't fornicate with the REAL creative forces in society. It DOES not work that way. If they are gonna claim a mandate to meddle in a particular market -- there is gonna be collusion..

I --- don't want the govt coming up with policy and subsidies without consulting industry. Do you? So the best thing to do is to LIMIT their ability to meddle in domestic economic issues.

Investing in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is not meddling.

It's common sense.

Spending $2 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste.

Obama won the Lybian war for only $1 billion.

It helps to have a smart president who works with our allies.

Choosing to promote one or two SOLAR companies over all the others PERVERTS the market and is meddling. So is choosing one or 2 EV car companies over all other ideas that might exist out there. Chances of KILLING a competitive good idea by backing a LOSER is pretty damn high. A new company has to PROVE to investors that they understand the entire competitive field. The GOVT just wastes and tosses money at "hot tips"..

Also Giving GE $150 for every washer/dryer sold is NOT PRODUCTIVE. It is NOT "research". It is pushing a phoney Green agenda as an excuse for crony Capitalism.. Until GOVT can keep it in the pants and not MEDDLE in all these things --- you can't trust them as a "great equalizer"....

 

[martybegan]

The Whiskey Tax unfairly burdened small Distilleries, while giving special breaks to the Larger Companies, again, Progressivism encouraging Big Business, Centralization, National Reach, and easy Government Control, while eliminating Competition, and discouraging Small Enterprise. Hamilton Scam and Scheme 101.

While it wasnt ideal, it was the feds first attempt at a national, non tarriff style tax. They did get it wrong with the flat fee exception, but the proper response was not a insurrection.

Once they got rid of the flat fee concept, subsequent booze taxes became acceptable ways of funding the federal government.

Insurrection? Was that before or after an army was organised to force a bunch of farmers and backwoodsmen into compliance?

It was when they tarred and feathered the revenue men (a usually fatal practice in those days), and the battle of bower hill, where they surrounded a marshal trying to deliver federal writs.

The farmers and backwoodsmen had already organized before the 12k strong federalized milita marched into the area. A

 

[Intense]

The fastest growing economy in Europe is Sweden.

Money invested in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is what drives an economy.

I wouldn't trust this govt to invest in a church raffle ticket.. It's the arrogance that they are qualified to RUN and DIRECT everything from energy drinks to nuclear physics. That's the 537 ELECTED Washington officials OF WHICH YOU only get to vote for 5 of them...

The problem with big govt as the equalizer is that they don't know SHIT about stuff. Leftists expect that an energy policy is just something that Al Gore can come up with in the shower. It's a childish unrealistic expectation that GOVT could construct a meaningful and wise energy policy without KNOWING exactly what was in the LABS of every energy company in America. And they TRY to do that. They get carnal with industry because THEY HAVE TO --- unless they want to look like chumps when they draft a policy that becomes obsolete in 6 months.

You CANNOT have an equalizer that doesn't fornicate with the REAL creative forces in society. It DOES not work that way. If they are gonna claim a mandate to meddle in a particular market -- there is gonna be collusion..

I --- don't want the govt coming up with policy and subsidies without consulting industry. Do you? So the best thing to do is to LIMIT their ability to meddle in domestic economic issues.

Investing in education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is not meddling.

It's common sense.

Spending $2 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste.

Obama won the Lybian war for only $1 billion.

It helps to have a smart president who works with our allies.

Regardless of whether he has our consent and the Geneva Convention behind him or not.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't know about big government, but I'd certainly agree that good government equals the best option for social justice. The real debate lies in what constitutes good government.

The government that governs best, governs least."

It would logically follow then, that the best government is no government at all.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't possibly agree with that notion and I sure hope you don't either.

1. Charity cannot be forced by taxation or any other means. It must come from the individual without any coercion. Government therefore can NOT be charitable.

2. Just because a government is capable of doing something does not denote a requirement to do something.

3. Social "Justice" is inherently evil and unfair. To gain equal results in life, you have to handicap those who achieve more than other who do not. This lowest common denominator life is absolutely foolish.

4. if you had a responsible, ethical culture, you wouldn't need ANY form of government. But since we are not an ethical or responsible creature by nature, we must. The best form of government intrudes the least.

 

[The T]

Does big government equal social justice???

It could or could not provide social justice.

EXACTLY the same as SMALL governments might or might NOT be socially just

First you have to understand that any Government's main goal is to stay out of the way in order to foster an environment so citizens can exercise thier liberty as they see fit...succeed or fail...and with failure the same environment to start over with no interference from the government.

What has happened is that the Government has seen fit to intrude on behalf of a minority of petulant whiners that have found out that life is not fair at times, and outcomes aren't necessarily equal.

Government intrusion isn't social justice...social justice is government staying out of the fray. Government has chosen to intrude on behalf of the few creating a social injustice of the many.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[kwc57]

People who don't understand entitlements shouldn't be allowed to draw cartoons.

 

[BOBO]

Why not go to an all volunteer tax system??? That way no one is in the drivers seat of control over others, & the class envy that plagues the big government crowd would then be gone... so would polarization.

So many misconceptions. So much stupid spin.

Social justice is the way to ensure everyone gets an even break. Since the vast majority of the wealth is held by the slimmest of minorities, the essential failing of Capitalism is glaringly apparent. Once that wealth has disappeared from the grasp of each working American, the very American dream is endangered.

Many so called pundits on the right (and that 'right is getting more and more extreme) cite social justice as some Communist cabal. It figures. The right has a playbook for political success. And that playbook calls for playing the 'Communist" card whenever their political policies have failed. They started playing that commie card way back in 1919 and every thirty years or so, they dust it off and play it again.

How much justice can there be in a system that permits, even encourages by legislation that wealth can be consolidated among the very few? Reagan introduced "Supply Side" economics (Trickle Down or Voodoo Economics) and completely ignored the demand side! Coddle the rich with tax cuts, rewrite legislation to prevent monopolies and trusts that are "too big to fail" and bail the bastards out once they have committed enough common sense infractions and run the whole system into a ditch.

The basic problem with ignoring the demand side is it cuts the strength out from under the consumer base in our system of economics. Forget the consumer and who's left to buy the goods and services provided by the Supply Side?

And here's the real kicker: the very people most adversely effected by the consolidation of wealth (the American middle class consumer) are the folks hoodwinked by the pundits. How many people face foreclosure, and increase in tax rates (see "Flat Tax") and a vanishing industrial base. Do you suppose those modern American "Conservatives" have actually thought out how their compliance with Supply Side economic policies have screwed them blue? I doubt it! There's enough of a side show with the 'pundits' to keep them distracted from the wreck happening in their own lives. The pundits distract with social issues that foment hate and division. It gives those non-thinking American Conservatives enough red meat (hating immigrants, gays, minorities and the political opposition) and prevents real analysis of destructive policies like "Free Trade" and "Flat Taxes".

And so, we get the Social Justice movement. The pundits immediately play the Communist Card and voilà! The danger is apparent to the modern Conservative and any hope of understanding the means and ends of the movement are veneered by the old Red Scare!