Will the Right Eventually Openly Dump the Constitution?

Post Reply New Topic

@ruveyn Taxing is an instrument of government given to our nation in its infancy I do not consider it theft in a legal sense and I do not care if someone considers it theft in the common sense. Although I will acknowledge that is perfectly reasonable to consider it theft.

@AceofSpades You introduced your own definition without attacking mine, I call this an attempt at redefinition if you had actually compromised my definition I would have just continued arguing over the definition until satisfied, what you did is an attempt to redefine a term which has an accepted meaning. I am arguing on the side of the currently accepted common definition you are not therefor you are the one attempting to redefine the word.(I have no problem with this as a concept so there is no reason for you to take offense, unless of course you consider the practice offensive but in that case it is your problem not mine so keep it to yourself.) Also you did not just bring up a possibility you brought up a possible interpretation of his statement and tried to argue it as valid, that is redefinition.

The current welfare programs are not based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it is based on taking taxes and applying them to a useful cause with benefits that apply to the nation as a whole. The wealthy are not the sole contributers of taxes so your argument is invalid. And if you wish to argue that the way taxes are taken are unfair, do so, but keep in mind that this is a separate issue from the current one, it is also an issue I am less likely to argue against, I am for a percentage tax that is constant across all income levels exceeding the poverty level, with a cap on what can be taken from a single person in a year, but I am also for a corporate tax without such limits on what can be taken.

EDIT:


Nonsense it is based on the reasoning that people should be provided for when they cannot do so themselves. That otherwise they will become a hindrance to society taking from others violently and violating the law to provide for themselves. The current definitions are not based on entitlement. Also the general welfare is based on helping society as a whole preventing needless death and decay at the societal level. No one has claimed the poor are entitled to welfare if you wish to claim so again provide a source.

The current welfare programs are not based on a rich-poor division so your arguments have no validity.

What do you mean the current definitions aren't based on entitlement? The claim that "Definitions aren't based on entitlements" doesn't make any sense at all since entitlements aren't a basis for anything. It's the other way around, prioritization is a basis for entitlements. In this case, the demands of the poor are given a higher priority than those who want to reap what they sow. Anything that is considered a right is an entitlement since it is GIVEN to you without having to earn it. If the middle classes and the rich are being involuntarily taken from to give to the poor, then it falls under the definition of an entitlement.
An underlying assumption is not a statistic so it makes no sense to ask me to cite it.

No offense taken. Just cuz I swear it doesn't mean I'm angry. I'm very casual about it. Just don't call it redefining because I didn't change any definition of the word. There are different definitions within the word, and we used different ones.

And buddy, the definition isn't that cut and dried. Trust me, I hate arguing semantics more than anything else and I hate when people do so for the sake of being difficult. But the concept of social welfare is a relatively modern thing so the meaning of "Welfare" doesn't necessarily mean "Social welfare". I usually assume the common definition of words, but we're talking about quotes from the olden days so obviously they didn't use words the same way.

The majority of the poor in the states aren't dead broke like the left makes em out to be, so all that "We can't leave em to crawl in an alley somewhere and die" stuff is just sensationalism:

@ruveyn Taxing is an instrument of government given to our nation in its infancy I do not consider it theft in a legal sense and I do not care if someone considers it theft in the common sense. Although I will acknowledge that is perfectly reasonable to consider it theft.

That isn't the basis of the current welfare programs so I don't see what your arguing against.

That isn't the basis of the current welfare programs so I don't see what your arguing against.

As someone who managed a welfare program, I can tell you that it is inherently evil.

If you were to see for yourself how government management of programs for the needy results in massive waste, bureaucracy, doesn't help those who need it and then realize that for the amount taxed, well less than 20% gets into the hands who need it, you'd realize it simply doesn't work.

And that's not even touching on whether those who do get the benefit really need it vs. those who exploit the system to get stuff they don't deserve.

But what you have stated isn't justification for elimination its justification for reformation and regulation. "It simply doesn't work" are words that convey the spirit of the lazy, the idiotic, and the inept. Those words also don't work as arguments, give me your reasoning for why it "just doesn't work" and its likely a solution can be made instead of just giving up. All you've done so far is whine in the most general way possible.

@Ruveyn then go live in some jungle where you can live off the land and avoid society as a whole.

I'm all for welfare reformation and regulation, but these two are arguing for elimination of welfare not its reformation.

Welfare should not give more than what is needed to eat and live somewhere heated during the winter.(There is no reason for the bureaucratic separation of welfare and food-stamps) Programs which educate the poor should be independent in implementation but welfare should depend on whether or not someone is being educated and/or is seeking work. Also the amount someone gets for food-stamps is ridiculous, I believe its somewhere around $300 a month for one person, a $100(perhaps adjusted for regional price differences) dollars should be a little more than enough of a food budget for one person. I don't know about welfare but its not hard to imagine a similar problem.

I believe in a sustenance based welfare system not the comfort bases system we currently have.

Also all monetary resources should be considered in determining welfare eligibility and payout, I hear of people disqualified for working too many hours which is just ridiculousness.

EDIT: Large portion of this post is a rant.

"General welfare" means the welfare of people in general... that implies that a government must work for what's best for society in general and not work for a tiny elite. So a policy that reduces the standard of living for 90% of the population in the name of Ayn Rand anti-morality would violate the General Welfare clause. Welfare and other social programmes are things that favour the general welfare. Without them, the vast majority will end up at the mercy of their bosses.

A system that openly punishes the unemployed? When NAIRU is official policy? That is inhumane and completely wrong in every way.

There is no punishment, if you are going to be using the money of your fellow citizens you had best be doing something constructive. Telling someone to look for a job is not punishment, Educating someone is not punishment. Work is liberation, Knowledge is freedom.(creepy, no?)

Work is liberation,