Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.
Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'
Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:
a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.
As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.
It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.
Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....
....does not exist in America.
Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?
The Liberal welfare policy is designed to keep the poor in exactly that condition.
As such it is eminently successful.
Looking at over a half century of Liberal 'guidance,' only a fool would deny same.
b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)”
- Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
- Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap
We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?
We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working
That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.
On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?
To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars. About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty
We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?
We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working
That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.
On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?
To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars. About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty
Did you know that far more is spent on social programs than defense? ( Income redistribution ....The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher.
One more thing you didn't know.
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
3. Let's assume any good Liberal would answer 'a.'.....
a. What's to stop any 'reliable Democrat voter' from reaching into his or her own pocket and voluntarily forking over their earnings either to the IRS, or to charitable institutions?
Nothing.
But...they don't.
· "Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
· People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.
· Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.
· People who are religious [e.g., conservatives] give more across the board, not only to religious causes but to non-religious charities as well.
· Charity isn’t just a rich man’s activity: The working poor give a greater proportion of their income than the middle or upper classes.
· Americans give far more money and volunteer much more frequently than Europeans.
· Charitable giving fosters not only personal happiness, but economic growth and prosperity.
[For a real eye-full, check out what Obama and Biden historically give to charity.]
Who gives in America? About three out of four families give charitable gifts each year. The average amount is $1,800, or 3.5 percent of their income. Brooks finds that the most generous donors have four key traits: religious faith, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism. Where these converge, dollars flow freely toward charitable causes." Review of Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares - TIC
4. Real Americans, those whose views are consistent with those of the Founders, don't believe in coerced redistribution.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
3. Let's assume any good Liberal would answer 'a.'.....
a. What's to stop any 'reliable Democrat voter' from reaching into his or her own pocket and voluntarily forking over their earnings either to the IRS, or to charitable institutions?
Nothing.
But...they don't.
· "Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
· People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.
· Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.
· People who are religious [e.g., conservatives] give more across the board, not only to religious causes but to non-religious charities as well.
· Charity isn’t just a rich man’s activity: The working poor give a greater proportion of their income than the middle or upper classes.
· Americans give far more money and volunteer much more frequently than Europeans.
· Charitable giving fosters not only personal happiness, but economic growth and prosperity.
[For a real eye-full, check out what Obama and Biden historically give to charity.]
Who gives in America? About three out of four families give charitable gifts each year. The average amount is $1,800, or 3.5 percent of their income. Brooks finds that the most generous donors have four key traits: religious faith, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism. Where these converge, dollars flow freely toward charitable causes." Review of Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares - TIC
4. Real Americans, those whose views are consistent with those of the Founders, don't believe in coerced redistribution.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
1. Again...why a or b?
a.Why not both?
Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
a. Conservatives give to their church.....not necessarily charity
1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.
Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'
Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:
a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:
a. "In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd
b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]
Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
What does Obama say?
1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.
Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'
Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:
a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:
a. "In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd
b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]
Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
What does Obama say?
The link doesn't work. Give us one that does and will back up your claim.We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?
We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working
That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.
On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?
To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars. About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty
Did you know that far more is spent on social programs than defense? ( Income redistribution ....The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher.
One more thing you didn't know.
We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?
We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working
That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.
On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?
To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars.
About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty
1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.
Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'
Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:
a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.
As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.
It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.
Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....
....does not exist in America.
Is your assertion that our poor don't suffer enough for your liking?
The conservative philosophy is that if you force the poor to experience poverty to its fullest degree, with no alleviation whatsoever from the government or anyone else,
that the suffering will cause the poor to magically choose to stop being poor.
(They like to cite Africa as the best example of how this approach has remarkable success)
If that were true it would be called the Dept. of Destroying and not the Dept. of Defense.We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?
We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working
That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.
On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?
Unquestioningly stupid, yes.
To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars.
The purpose of the DOD is not to end war. The purpose of the DOD is to destroy an enemy.
About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty
Results tell.
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
3. Let's assume any good Liberal would answer 'a.'.....
a. What's to stop any 'reliable Democrat voter' from reaching into his or her own pocket and voluntarily forking over their earnings either to the IRS, or to charitable institutions?
Nothing.
But...they don't.
· "Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
· People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.
· Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.
· People who are religious [e.g., conservatives] give more across the board, not only to religious causes but to non-religious charities as well.
· Charity isn’t just a rich man’s activity: The working poor give a greater proportion of their income than the middle or upper classes.
· Americans give far more money and volunteer much more frequently than Europeans.
· Charitable giving fosters not only personal happiness, but economic growth and prosperity.
[For a real eye-full, check out what Obama and Biden historically give to charity.]
Who gives in America? About three out of four families give charitable gifts each year. The average amount is $1,800, or 3.5 percent of their income. Brooks finds that the most generous donors have four key traits: religious faith, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism. Where these converge, dollars flow freely toward charitable causes." Review of Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares - TIC
4. Real Americans, those whose views are consistent with those of the Founders, don't believe in coerced redistribution.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
1. Again...why a or b?
a.Why not both?
1. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
2. Charity is not a government function....read the Constitution.
The link doesn't work. Give us one that does and will back up your claim.We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?
We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working
That really is the stupidest thing I've read since coming back here. Thanks. You define yourself well.
On second thought...that is pretty stupid isn't it?
To think that all that military spending will somehow stop wars. About as stupid to think that money spent to help the poor will someday end poverty
Did you know that far more is spent on social programs than defense? ( Income redistribution ....The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher.
One more thing you didn't know.
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
3. Let's assume any good Liberal would answer 'a.'.....
a. What's to stop any 'reliable Democrat voter' from reaching into his or her own pocket and voluntarily forking over their earnings either to the IRS, or to charitable institutions?
Nothing.
But...they don't.
· "Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
· People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.
· Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.
· People who are religious [e.g., conservatives] give more across the board, not only to religious causes but to non-religious charities as well.
· Charity isn’t just a rich man’s activity: The working poor give a greater proportion of their income than the middle or upper classes.
· Americans give far more money and volunteer much more frequently than Europeans.
· Charitable giving fosters not only personal happiness, but economic growth and prosperity.
[For a real eye-full, check out what Obama and Biden historically give to charity.]
Who gives in America? About three out of four families give charitable gifts each year. The average amount is $1,800, or 3.5 percent of their income. Brooks finds that the most generous donors have four key traits: religious faith, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism. Where these converge, dollars flow freely toward charitable causes." Review of Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares - TIC
4. Real Americans, those whose views are consistent with those of the Founders, don't believe in coerced redistribution.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
1. Again...why a or b?
a.Why not both?
1. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
2. Charity is not a government function....read the Constitution.
a. There is nothing in the Constitution banning Congress from helping people who need help
2. You are welcome to show a single court case that proclaims charity is not a government function
Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
a. Conservatives give to their church.....not necessarily charity
That's a lie.....you know, like your avi.
1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.
2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."
3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.
4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.
5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."
6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.
7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."
8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."
"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap - Reason.com
If that were true it would be called the Dept. of Destroying and not the Dept. of Defense.
So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?
A or B?
3. Let's assume any good Liberal would answer 'a.'.....
a. What's to stop any 'reliable Democrat voter' from reaching into his or her own pocket and voluntarily forking over their earnings either to the IRS, or to charitable institutions?
Nothing.
But...they don't.
· "Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
· People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.
· Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.
· People who are religious [e.g., conservatives] give more across the board, not only to religious causes but to non-religious charities as well.
· Charity isn’t just a rich man’s activity: The working poor give a greater proportion of their income than the middle or upper classes.
· Americans give far more money and volunteer much more frequently than Europeans.
· Charitable giving fosters not only personal happiness, but economic growth and prosperity.
[For a real eye-full, check out what Obama and Biden historically give to charity.]
Who gives in America? About three out of four families give charitable gifts each year. The average amount is $1,800, or 3.5 percent of their income. Brooks finds that the most generous donors have four key traits: religious faith, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism. Where these converge, dollars flow freely toward charitable causes." Review of Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares - TIC
4. Real Americans, those whose views are consistent with those of the Founders, don't believe in coerced redistribution.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
1. Again...why a or b?
a.Why not both?
1. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
2. Charity is not a government function....read the Constitution.
a. There is nothing in the Constitution banning Congress from helping people who need help
2. You are welcome to show a single court case that proclaims charity is not a government function
You're as dumb as a Liberal....oh...wait....
The authorized functions of the federal government are clearly listed in article 1, section 8, you dope.
More remedial education:
- “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve this measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” —President Franklin Piece (1804-1869)
- “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation [for charity relief] in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.” —President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)
Devil's Advocate: Not only should all welfare programs be ended to encourage evolution and survival of the fittest, but any and all public assistance, kindness to the poor, etc. should too. Why help the weak survive and pass on failure-genes only ensuring the problems continues with the next generation? Everytime we send food and money to Africa during famine and hard times, all we do is help weak people go on living long enough to reproduce and multiply the problem.
Let the weak die. Problem solved.
