Charity: Not in the Constitution

It was government funding which paid for the original development of the internet.

And so you have demonstrated that gov is capable of creating large projects. That was where you started when you named pyramids. Yes they can do large things but under our constituion they should only do certain large things.
I think we are talking about two different kinds of projects, building cars and selling them is nothing like the Center for Disease Control. One is a for profit enterprise which is based entirely on making money. Whereas working to guard the public health has no profit motive, no product to sell. The same applies to building houses, whereas the interstate hiway system again has nothing to sell--unless tolls are charged.

Working to safeguard the public health is the product and since they are funded their is a profit motive. The means by which those who produce the product can be done many different ways. But whatever way it is it should not be unconstitutional.
Just as the military doesn't turn a profit, there are many other projects that are not money-makers either. Your idea that a greed-based system can provide all the things to make life livable is incorrect. An excellent example of this is the pharmaceutical industry which would not invest in a cure for AIDS because they stated that not enough people had it to justify the cost of the research. So, the government is funding the research.
[/QUOTE]

The military doesn't turn a profit? They take in enough money to produce their product - that is all they have to do.

I do not advocate a greed based system. That would be a straw man. I do advocate the ONLY system that checks greed. I advocate that there is a role for gov and that role is defined by the constitution.

Did one company not want to invest in research to find a cure for aids? There are a million charities out there collecting money to do research for various illnesses and they are all being funded very well - including aids. If for some reason you think they are not funded well enough there is a very very simple cure - donate and encourage others to donate too. If enough people do not think a cause is worthy enough to donate to then obviously it is also not worthy enough to justify coercing the money out of taxpayers either.
 
Werbung:
And so you have demonstrated that gov is capable of creating large projects. That was where you started when you named pyramids. Yes they can do large things but under our constituion they should only do certain large things.
Working to safeguard the public health is the product and since they are funded their is a profit motive. The means by which those who produce the product can be done many different ways. But whatever way it is it should not be unconstitutional.
The military doesn't turn a profit? They take in enough money to produce their product - that is all they have to do.

I do not advocate a greed based system. That would be a straw man. I do advocate the ONLY system that checks greed. I advocate that there is a role for gov and that role is defined by the constitution.

Did one company not want to invest in research to find a cure for aids? There are a million charities out there collecting money to do research for various illnesses and they are all being funded very well - including aids. If for some reason you think they are not funded well enough there is a very very simple cure - donate and encourage others to donate too. If enough people do not think a cause is worthy enough to donate to then obviously it is also not worthy enough to justify coercing the money out of taxpayers either.

Your grip on economics seems tenuous at best. You need to find out the difference between a service and a profit.
 
Your grip on economics seems tenuous at best. You need to find out the difference between a service and a profit.

In economic theory every service is also a product. The fruits of ones labor might be material or not.

"The noun product is defined as a "thing produced by labor or effort"[1] or the "result of an act or a process"[2], and stems from the verb produce, from the Latin prōdūce(re) '(to) lead or bring forth'. Since 1575, the word "product" has referred to anything produced[3]. Since 1695, the word has referred to "thing or things produced". The economic or commercial meaning of product was first used by political economist Adam Smith[4].

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need[5]. In retailing, products are called merchandise. In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods. Commodities are usually raw materials such as metals and agricultural products, but a commodity can also be anything widely available in the open market. In project management, products are the formal definition of the project deliverables that make up or contribute to delivering the objectives of the project.

In general usage, product may refer to a single item or unit, a group of equivalent products, a grouping of goods or services, or an industrial classification for the goods or services."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(business)

Michael Jordan sold a product to his employers - it was his talent in using a basketball. And it made millions.
 
Modern liberalism (in both parties) is based on the tactic of government forcibly taking money from Peter to pay Paul, on grounds that Paul needs it more. It's also known as "buying Paul's vote with Peter's money" - a tactic that works as long as Paul outnumbers Peter by enough votes.
....Or, as-long-as Paul is a BANKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(....And has a "friend" in the Librul Bush Admin's Oval Office.....)
 
Roads between states existed while there were still 13 colonies before there even was a thing as a federal government. In fact the phrase "all roads lead to Rome" describes the existence of paved interstate roads 2000 years ago.

And we needed a modern Interstate Highway System to vastly help commerce. No one had the money to do that so the government stepped in for the overall betterment of all.

The first state park existed most certainly also existed before there was a federal government. Probably in one of the original 13 colonies.

And without Federal set asides and funding the national Park system would today be a corporate oil field or owned and used for any number of other industrialized business uses other than nature and wildlife.

Surely as soon as medical science became advanced enough for there to be anything along the lines of a CDC the states would each create one. Why every state still has a health department. And according to this site state run health departments existed all the way back to Egyptian times:
http://www.ci.st-joseph.mo.us/health/health_history.cfm

And millions & millions of Americans would have died waiting on someone else to do it. The Black Plague and many other things were able to spread rampantly in history because there was no good, well funded, centralized disease study & control organization.

We never needed NASA.

Well when that possible Armageddon asteroid gets on the grid coming at us I'm thinking I want to have space knowledge and a lot of it. I want to know when it's still far enough away to do something about it and have a capability to do something about it. I can guarantee you this... Muskets ain't gonna get the job done.;)

Plus you don't know at all what we may find or learn in space. We might find a new fuel or a place to store toxic waste. Necessity is the mother of invention. And who knows what our future necessity may be.


No military except to repel invasion. Um, but that is the liberal dream. One I agree with, there is not need for the US to have an offensive military or to engage in so called imperialistic persuits.

I think it's well established that we need more than just a defensive force. It's the justification for deployment and the lust to Nation Build that is the general reoccurring problem.

Disaster relief: also a thing that has been going on for as long as history has been recorded.

Maybe pick up a book on the Dust Bowl sometime... Hoover wasn't doing squat... and that was a problem. He felt it was up to just the states under duress. And then it spread & spread at times coating ships way offshore outside of New York harbor with dust three quarters of an inch thick.

You have no evidence that it would take longer for things to be developed without government involvement and for all the things that have existed as long as history has been recorded it would be silly to make that statement.

The evidence is simply that it wasn't being done at all at the time it desperately needed to be done.

And seriously if you just think about it for a minute, you're... Well sometime we'd a got around to doing something sorta like that...

Is a lot like a Green Acres episode with Mr. Haney saying he'd be right back to fix Mr. Douglas's barn.;)


 
Werbung:
And we needed a modern Interstate Highway System to vastly help commerce. No one had the money to do that so the government stepped in for the overall betterment of all.

What evidence do you have that no one had the money to create an interstate highway system? When the fed did it where did the money come from? Why from the citizens of the states, that's where. So obviously the state had the money.

And without Federal set asides and funding the national Park system would today be a corporate oil field or owned and used for any number of other industrialized business uses other than nature and wildlife.

That again is conjecture. If the fed could create a park and not let an oil company use it then clearly a state in which the park exists could do the same thing.

And millions & millions of Americans would have died waiting on someone else to do it. The Black Plague and many other things were able to spread rampantly in history because there was no good, well funded, centralized disease study & control organization.

We are in the middle of a pandemic (thankfully not deadly) right now and none of the kings horses are stopping it.

Your notion that million would have died without a fed health system is pure conjecture. Where is your evidence that the states would not have state of the art systems - which they did have.

Are you aware that in the middle ages there was a centralized system for dealing with the black plague? You can't get much more "federal" than a monarchy. It didn't do much good, not because it did not exist, but because it was the middle ages.

Well when that possible Armageddon asteroid gets on the grid coming at us I'm thinking I want to have space knowledge and a lot of it. I want to know when it's still far enough away to do something about it and have a capability to do something about it. I can guarantee you this... Muskets ain't gonna get the job done.;)


Uh right.
Plus you don't know at all what we may find or learn in space. We might find a new fuel or a place to store toxic waste. Necessity is the mother of invention. And who knows what our future necessity may be.

I'm not going to advocate Americans give up their real liberty for that dream.

I think it's well established that we need more than just a defensive force. It's the justification for deployment and the lust to Nation Build that is the general reoccurring problem.

I think this is worthy of it's own thread.

Maybe pick up a book on the Dust Bowl sometime... Hoover wasn't doing squat... and that was a problem. He felt it was up to just the states under duress. And then it spread & spread at times coating ships way offshore outside of New York harbor with dust three quarters of an inch thick.

The dust bowl was caused by both drought and poor farming.

It seems to me that the federal gov acted extensively withe little results UNTIL THE DROUGHT ENDED:

"During President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first 100 days in 1933, governmental programs designed to conserve soil and restore the ecological balance of the nation were implemented. Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes established the Soil Erosion Service in August 1933 under Hugh Hammond Bennett. In 1935 it was transferred and reorganized under the Department of Agriculture and renamed the Soil Conservation Service. More recently it has been renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).[15]

Additionally, the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation (FSRC) was created after more than six million pigs were slaughtered to stabilize prices. The pigs went to waste. The FSRC diverted agricultural commodities to relief organizations. Apples, beans, canned beef, flour and pork products were distributed through local relief channels. Cotton goods were later included, to clothe the needy.[16]

In 1935, the federal government formed a Drought Relief Service (DRS) to coordinate relief activities. The DRS bought cattle in counties which were designated emergency areas, for $14 to $20 a head. Animals unfit for human consumption - more than 50 percent at the beginning of the program - were destroyed. The remaining cattle were given to the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation (FSRC) to be used in food distribution to families nationwide. Although it was difficult for farmers to give up their herds, the cattle slaughter program helped many of them avoid bankruptcy. "The government cattle buying program was a God-send to many farmers, as they could not afford to keep their cattle, and the government paid a better price than they could obtain in local markets."[17]

President Roosevelt ordered the Civilian Conservation Corps to plant a huge belt of more than 200 million trees from Canada to Abilene, Texas to break the wind, hold water in the soil, and hold the soil itself in place. The administration also began to educate farmers on soil conservation and anti-erosion techniques, including crop rotation, strip farming, contour plowing, terracing, and other improved farming practices.[18][19] In 1937, the federal government began an aggressive campaign to encourage Dust Bowlers to adopt planting and plowing methods that conserved the soil. The government paid the reluctant farmers a dollar an acre to practice one of the new methods. By 1938, the massive conservation effort had reduced the amount of blowing soil by 65 percent. Nevertheless, the land failed to yield a decent living. In the fall of 1939, after nearly a decade of dirt and dust, rain finally came."

In summary, the bowl was caused by both drought and poor farming. Hoover, a geologist, did nothing, Roosevelt did a lot but had little results at huge expense, until it rained.



The evidence is simply that it wasn't being done at all at the time it desperately needed to be done.


Go ahead and name some fed gov program that was not being done before, was desperately needed, and could not have been done by the states or indivuals. So far you have not.
 
Back
Top