Question(s) for Christians

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The Constitution may be read that way. It is possible it even should be read that way.... however, over 200 years of law establish that it is not the case, Math.

Philosophically, and I think you agree in terms of state and local governments, I believe government is best understood as a "pooled resource" for the common good. I think about it from an anthropological perspective. In other words, ask yourself the question: What is the evolutionary "advantage" in organizing governments.

Or... if you prefer,

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If Congress, in its wisdom, determines that it is healthier for the nation to provide welfare to its citizenry, for whatever reason, then it is within their authority to so enact.

 

[mathman]

The Constitution may be read that way. It is possible it even should be read that way.... however, over 200 years of law establish that it is not the case, Math.

Philosophically, and I think you agree in terms of state and local governments, I believe government is best understood as a "pooled resource" for the common good. I think about it from an anthropological perspective. In other words, ask yourself the question: What is the evolutionary "advantage" in organizing governments.

Or... if you prefer,

[BKB had a quote from the constitution in here. Not sure where it went.]

If Congress, in its wisdom, determines that it is healthier for the nation to provide welfare to its citizenry, for whatever reason, then it is within their authority to so enact.

Thank you for that simple, yet convincing, rebuttal.

At what point, then, do the negative incentives I discussed become more of detriment to the general welfare of the United States than the relative poverty the federal assistance was designed to alleviate?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Thank you for that simple, yet convincing, rebuttal.

At what point, then, do the negative incentives I discussed become more of detriment to the general welfare of the United States than the relative poverty the federal assistance was designed to alleviate?

No problem, and welcome aboard.

As to your question, the easiest answer, I think would be "When Congress says so" But, as has been brought up on countless other threads, that's a virtual impossibility now - Government never takes away that which it has given (I realize that's an "absolute" and not necessarily true, but more or less captures the fact that it's some degree of political suicide to say to voters "Well, you're fucked")

As towards a more philosophical response - well... I think you'll find 10 different places to draw that line if you ask 10 people.

I hate to deflect like that, but I don't think there's a "right" answer.

Edit: Oh, and when you quote a poster - the items quoted in that posters post do not get re-quoted. Nothing you did made it disappear.

 

[mathman]

No problem, and welcome aboard.

As to your question, the easiest answer, I think would be "When Congress says so" But, as has been brought up on countless other threads, that's a virtual impossibility now - Government never takes away that which it has given (I realize that's an "absolute" and not necessarily true, but more or less captures the fact that it's some degree of political suicide to say to voters "Well, you're [censored]ed")

But shouldn't Congress say so when the people say so? Yes, there have been morally reprehensible policies (slavery, segregation, prohibition, Jim Crow laws) that were publicly popular, but those instances are few and far between. At some point Congress will be held accountable for poor leadership. I hope. I can't remember who said it (Franklin, Adams, Madison?), but a quote that I've heard and find true and will paraphrase here: the American experiment will survive until the populace realizes that it can vote itself money from the public largesse. In other words, we may well be screwed. It may be too late to turn the financial irresponsibility back enough to make a difference. Or we may have lost the national will to do so.

One case of the government taking away that which it gave: the Bush tax cuts, which are all set to expire in the next year or two. The biggest: the estate tax returns, up to 55% for some. The next biggest: every tax bracket is set to go up by 3-5% (e.g. from 32 to 35%). Why is it that the only government roll-backs are on the things conservatives like?

 

[Jake]

If Congress, in its wisdom, determines that it is healthier for the nation to provide welfare to its citizenry, for whatever reason, then it is within their authority to so enact.

I didn't expect to see someone attempt to suggest that when the founding fathers wrote "promote the general welfare" they meant "take money earned by one citizen, under the threat of government force, and give it to someone else" in this thread but it appears I was wrong.

Simply calling this practice "welfare" doesn't make it consistent with the intent of the authors no matter how many lawyers have twisted themselves in knots to spin it that way over the last 200 years.

 

[cincibuck]

The government funds many kinds of welfare -- giving money to the poor is just one of the many systems.

I believe it's easier -- and far more likely to be covered by the press -- to find fault, corruption and disincentive in money to the poor because they seldom have advocates; whereas calling a corporation/bank/individual out can be difficult, expensive and get you hurt.

BUT

I don't know/see how anyone can read the Gospel and not come to the conclusion that Jesus is a radical, social activist and committed advocate of the poor. Now, how that gets interpreted into Calvinist theology remains a complete mystery to me.

 

[MaxBuck]

If Congress, in its wisdom, determines that it is healthier for the nation to provide welfare to its citizenry, for whatever reason, then it is within their authority to so enact.

I didn't expect to see someone attempt to suggest that when the founding fathers wrote "promote the general welfare" they meant "take money earned by one citizen, under the threat of government force, and give it to someone else" in this thread but it appears I was wrong.

If reductio ad absurdum were suddenly to become impossible, I believe Jake would spontaneously combust.

 

[DubCoffman62]

I'm not a Christian but I've always heard that God helps those who help themselves meaning not relying on others to fulfill their needs as their they're doing bong hits on the sofa while watching cartoons.

 

[cincibuck]

I'm not a Christian but I've always heard that God helps those who help themselves meaning not relying on others to fulfill their needs as they're doing bong hits on the sofa while watching cartoons.

Which begs the question, what % of the poor are hitting on the bong? Having lived close to section 8 housing and working poor for a long stretch of time (1979 - 2000) while renovating a Victorian I can tell you that the answer is not 100%.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I didn't expect to see someone attempt to suggest that when the founding fathers wrote "promote the general welfare" they meant "take money earned by one citizen, under the threat of government force, and give it to someone else" in this thread but it appears I was wrong.

I didn't expect to see someone put their words on framing an issue in my mouth when giving an answer to a question on this thread, but it appears I was wrong.

The guy asked a question, I answered it. I don't really give a fuck if you are gonna bitch. Frankly, I already know you're going to bitch. It's what you do. Have a nice day.

Simply calling this practice "welfare" doesn't make it consistent with the intent of the authors no matter how many lawyers have twisted themselves in knots to spin it that way over the last 200 years.

I'm not focused on the word "welfare" Jake. Congress has privilege to determine whatever it wants as promoting the general welfare. Your ability to understand the concept is not a necessary precedent.

 

[DubCoffman62]

Which begs the question, what % of the poor are hitting on the bong? Having lived close to section 8 housing and working poor for a long stretch of time (1979 - 2000) while renovating a Victorian I can tell you that the answer is not 100%.

You're right, to be honest I had one particular poor person in mind, my brother in-law. As a non-Christian I probably have no business in this thread it's just that it's been my experience that people make themselves poor by making poor decisions and not managing their money properly. All handouts do is encourage irresponsible behavior like the women who pop out kids because each one fattens their welfare check.
It's like this. Say your well off and your brother isn't so you decide to take him in, help him out. You're paying for everything until he gets back on his feet. However, instead of saving his money and maybe working an extra job he goes out and buys an x-box, knocks up his wife, you send him to the store for a gallon of milk and come back with not just the milk but a six pack of beer, some beef jerky, a hustler magazine and some cheap toys for his kids. How long would put up with that before you cut him off?

 

[Taosman]

Some food for thought.....
NEW YORK ? The U.S. healthcare system comes in last for performance among seven industrialized nations, despite spending the most, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. The researchers note that healthcare reform and uptake of health information technology hold promise for the future.
Despite having the most expensive healthcare system, the United States ranked last overall compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
The research measured five performance areas: quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives.
While there is room for improvement in every country, the United States stands out for not getting good value for its healthcare dollars, ranking last despite spending $7,290 per capita on healthcare in 2007 compared to the $3,837 spent per capita in the Netherlands, which ranked first overall.
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/us-ranks-last-among-seven-countries-healthcare-performance

 

[cincibuck]

My problem with welfare is that it is the government taking my money against my will, and doing with it what I don't think the government should be doing. If I want someone to have my money, then I give it to him. And I'm happy to do that. But I don't like the government forcing me to give money.

I don't know what, exactly, that has to do with being Christian. Of course, I don't read the bible. Maybe the 11th commandment says "Thou shalt create governments which force the peoples to give money to other peoples".

But I doubt that you're against highways, schools, police and fire protection, the underwriting of essential services, the funding of research and development --

It's not that I like paying taxes, but my perception is that I get a great deal for what I pay along with an awareness that my lifestyle would be impossible without the considerable affect of tax generated goods and services.

 

[mathman]

But I doubt that you're against highways, schools, police and fire protection, the underwriting of essential services, the funding of research and development --

It's not that I like paying taxes, but my perception is that I get a great deal for what I pay along with an awareness that my lifestyle would be impossible without the considerable affect of tax generated goods and services.

I hope you'll admit there's a difference between paying taxes for the things we all use and need (infrastructure and national defense) and paying taxes for entitlements. It's the redistribution of wealth that is a problem to conservatives.

As far as the funding of research and development, I think that's a gray area. I don't think there's any real mandate for the government to reappropriate taxpayer money to people doing research, but some of the research would never get done without programs like the NSF. Some of the research funded by the government, however, would get done better if the government weren't involved (the profit motive is generally stronger than the public service motive).

But neither infrastructure nor research is the question of this thread. When the conservatives mention taxes in this thread, and I think I can speak for all of us on this, we are talking specifically about taxes levied to provide entitlements.

 

[MaxBuck]

... it's been my experience that people make themselves poor by making poor decisions and not managing their money properly. All handouts do is encourage irresponsible behavior like the women who pop out kids because each one fattens their welfare check.

Wow. What an uncharitable, cynical, self-congratulatory tone you take.

If only everyone could be as fucking virtuous as you, the world would be nothing but lollipops and rainbows.