Thank a Liberal

[dblack]

Who does that?

We the people have asked our government to use our tax dollars to fund a collective insurance system for those in need. And they did.

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Where does it say the federal government cannot look out for the common good in the constitution? I must have missed that part.

I guess you did.

Regardless, I'm not really interested in arguing what the rules are, but rather what we think they should be. Because, ultimately, that's how they'll be interpreted. I'm trying to make the point that democracy isn't viable unless it's dependably limited in scope and reach. Democracy depends on the consent of everyone to abide by the decisions of the majority (or their representatives). If that consent amounts to a blank check, no sane person could ever agree to it. Which is why our country is rapidly descending into insanity.

 

[Sallow]

and now you are saying it isn't valid. another typical liberal flip flop.

It isn't valid because we have a professional standing army under federal control.

If it were valid, our military would look alot like Sweden's or Swizterland's.

yea, i kind of missed the part where it say no longer valid once we have a professional army. not only do you flip flop, but you make shit up.

First off..I caution you this is the clean debate zone.

Secondly..I invite you to actually read the whole constitution.

Specifically Section 8 - The powers of congress.

There's a whole lot of material that clarifies my position.

 

[dblack]

Who does that?

We the people have asked our government to use our tax dollars to fund a collective insurance system for those in need. And they did.

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Wait, what?

That IS the way Democracy works.

Majority rule.

Nope. Unlimited majority rule never works. It works for the majority, for a short while. But then it falls apart.

 

[manifold]

There's nothing Liberal (in the classic sense) at all, about demanding that the government provide for all your basic needs

Who does that?

We the people have asked our government to use our tax dollars to fund a collective insurance system for those in need. And they did.

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Don't confuse majority rule with the will of the people.

Funding welfare programs with tax dollars is not a violation of the US Constitution.

 

[Underhill]

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Where does it say the federal government cannot look out for the common good in the constitution? I must have missed that part.

I guess you did.

Regardless, I'm not really interested in arguing what the rules are, but rather what we think they should be. Because, ultimately, that's how they'll be interpreted. I'm trying to make the point that democracy isn't viable unless it's dependably limited in scope and reach. Democracy depends on the consent of everyone to abide by the decisions of the majority (or their representatives). If that consent amounts to a blank check, no sane person could ever agree to it. Which is why our country is rapidly descending into insanity.

I've been saying for years now that I think history will look back on democracy in much the same light as communism but for different reasons.

They both sound good on the surface but then human nature rears it's head.

In a democracy, it is almost always in the best interest of the representative to spend and rarely in his interest to cut. This is why it's always been easier to add pork than to cut spending.

Every constituent wants cuts, just not to anything that might affect them or anyone they know...

 

[dblack]

Who does that?

We the people have asked our government to use our tax dollars to fund a collective insurance system for those in need. And they did.

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Don't confuse majority rule with the will of the people.

And what is the relevant difference, in your view?

 

[jasonnfree]

If it wasn't for Liberals, we'd still be singing "God Bless the Queen" and drinking warm beer.

so you are saying liberals are resposible for the second amendment?

I don't think he's saying that because the 2nd Amendment came about after Britain was defeated.

 

[manifold]

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Don't confuse majority rule with the will of the people.

And what is the relevant difference, in your view?

Majority rule is just that, the majority always rules. The will of the people (or "We the People") is nebulous enough to be subject to nuanced interpretation. As long as we have a representative form of democracy, at least technically we don't have majority rules democracy.

 

[dblack]

Don't confuse majority rule with the will of the people.

And what is the relevant difference, in your view?

Majority rule is just that, the majority always rules. The will of the people (or "We the People") is nebulous enough to be subject to nuanced interpretation. As long as we have a representative form of democracy, at least technically we don't have majority rules democracy.

Ok (and I agree), but that's not relevant to the point I was making, which was that government should be constitutionally limited - regardless of whether it reflects the will of the people or not. Some people seem to think that if there is demonstrable majority support for a given policy, anything goes.

 

[Samson]

If it wasn't for Liberals, we'd still be singing "God Bless the Queen" and drinking warm beer.

Well, I guess one accomplishment every 237 years is better than nothing.

 

[manifold]

And what is the relevant difference, in your view?

Majority rule is just that, the majority always rules. The will of the people (or "We the People") is nebulous enough to be subject to nuanced interpretation. As long as we have a representative form of democracy, at least technically we don't have majority rules democracy.

Ok (and I agree), but that's not relevant to the point I was making, which was that government should be constitutionally limited - regardless of whether it reflects the will of the people or not. Some people seem to think that if there is demonstrable majority support for a given policy, anything goes.

In the extreme, this must be true of any government by the people, for the people and of the people. How can it be any other way?

At least with our constitution, the amendment process is a sizable hurdle, but a demonstrable majority still has a mechanism to exert force on the minority.


Edit:

Regardless, I got the impression that you were arguing that funding welfare with tax dollars is unconstitutional. I argue that it isn't.

 

[Wiseacre]

The problem with liberal progressives is that they think in terms of ideals rather than in pragmatic reality. We should do this, we should do that, with little or no thought to how, or to who will pay for it. And usually the people they intend to help are not helped much at all. How's that war on poverty going? All those great social programs we have today are the ones that are drowning us in a sea of debt. Make no mistake, eventually the piper must be paid sooner or later.

 

[manifold]

The problem with liberal progressives is that they think in terms of ideals rather than in pragmatic reality. We should do this, we should do that, with little or no thought to how, or to who will pay for it. And usually the people they intend to help are not helped much at all. How's that war on poverty going? All those great social programs we have today are the ones that are drowning us in a sea of debt. Make no mistake, eventually the piper must be paid sooner or later.

The bar tab for all those evil social programs is still far less than defense spending. Why single out social programs when it comes to the largesse of our federal government?

 

[Sallow]

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Wait, what?

That IS the way Democracy works.

Majority rule.

Nope. Unlimited majority rule never works. It works for the majority, for a short while. But then it falls apart.

We are talking about Democracy here..not "what works."

Typically Democracies are rule by majority.

There are things that mitigate that depending on the sort of government that is being employed.

 

[Wiseacre]

The problem with liberal progressives is that they think in terms of ideals rather than in pragmatic reality. We should do this, we should do that, with little or no thought to how, or to who will pay for it. And usually the people they intend to help are not helped much at all. How's that war on poverty going? All those great social programs we have today are the ones that are drowning us in a sea of debt. Make no mistake, eventually the piper must be paid sooner or later.

The bar tab for all those evil social programs is still far less than defense spending. Why single out social programs when it comes to the largesse of our federal government?

Because defense spending is going down and social program entitlement spending is going up. Way up over the next few decades. We've already cut a lot of money out of defense, and more coming from the sequester cuts. So far I haven't seen squat in spending cuts for social programs. And if you think our defense spending exceeds the spending for the social programs, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Sallow]

The problem with liberal progressives is that they think in terms of ideals rather than in pragmatic reality. We should do this, we should do that, with little or no thought to how, or to who will pay for it. And usually the people they intend to help are not helped much at all. How's that war on poverty going? All those great social programs we have today are the ones that are drowning us in a sea of debt. Make no mistake, eventually the piper must be paid sooner or later.

Which essentially goes against the "reality" of the last 20 years. You had the Reagan administration spending like crazy, with very little in the way of revenue. And you had the Clinton administration institute "Paygo" which did exactly what you are complaining about. Then you had the subsequent Bush administration get rid of Paygo and spend wildly again.

Sorry but history, especially recent history, doesn't fit the parameters outlined in your post.

 

[Sallow]

The problem with liberal progressives is that they think in terms of ideals rather than in pragmatic reality. We should do this, we should do that, with little or no thought to how, or to who will pay for it. And usually the people they intend to help are not helped much at all. How's that war on poverty going? All those great social programs we have today are the ones that are drowning us in a sea of debt. Make no mistake, eventually the piper must be paid sooner or later.

The bar tab for all those evil social programs is still far less than defense spending. Why single out social programs when it comes to the largesse of our federal government?

Because defense spending is going down and social program entitlement spending is going up. Way up over the next few decades. We've already cut a lot of money out of defense, and more coming from the sequester cuts. So far I haven't seen squat in spending cuts for social programs. And if you think our defense spending exceeds the spending for the social programs, you are sadly mistaken.

Then you haven't been looking. There have been many inefficiencies identified by ObamaCare in regards to Medicare. Don't you remember Romney talking about the "theft" of 750 billion dollars? Those were entitlement cuts. Except they weren't done to end users, they were done to providers. Which drove you folks crazy. Another efficiency that was identified was in regards to Student Loans. The Obama administration took that away from banks and saved a ton of money. Of course, the banks lost that money and Romney wanted to reinstate the old method.

 

[dblack]

Majority rule is just that, the majority always rules. The will of the people (or "We the People") is nebulous enough to be subject to nuanced interpretation. As long as we have a representative form of democracy, at least technically we don't have majority rules democracy.

Ok (and I agree), but that's not relevant to the point I was making, which was that government should be constitutionally limited - regardless of whether it reflects the will of the people or not. Some people seem to think that if there is demonstrable majority support for a given policy, anything goes.

In the extreme, this must be true of any government by the people, for the people and of the people. How can it be any other way?

I'd contend the US Constitution was history's first serious attempt to answer that question.

At least with our constitution, the amendment process is a sizable hurdle, but a demonstrable majority still has a mechanism to exert force on the minority.

Right. Exactly. The deliberately onerous amendment process is meant to put a damper on the sometimes fickle "will of the people".

Regardless, I got the impression that you were arguing that funding welfare with tax dollars is unconstitutional. I argue that it isn't.

I could be tempted to take up that argument, from a purely "ideal" point of view. But there are too many other, more egregious, constitutional violations to deal with. (ie if I were suddenly in charge, slashing safety nets would not be on my punch list).

 

[Intense]

Who does that?

We the people have asked our government to use our tax dollars to fund a collective insurance system for those in need. And they did.

I guess that's the crux of it. There are too many people now who don't get constitutionally limited government, who think that the will of the majority is the last word.

Democracy can't work that way.

Wait, what?

That IS the way Democracy works.

Majority rule.

That's not the way a Constitutional Republic Works.

 

[Intense]

Wait, what?

That IS the way Democracy works.

Majority rule.

Nope. Unlimited majority rule never works. It works for the majority, for a short while. But then it falls apart.

We are talking about Democracy here..not "what works."

Typically Democracies are rule by majority.

There are things that mitigate that depending on the sort of government that is being employed.

Who gets to decide what is Right and Just, Sallow? The Angry Mob? The only thing the Angry Mob will get you is Force of Will, no matter who gets hurt in the process.