Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

had to amend it to ban slavery as he suggested earlier.

On that point I was not disagreeing.

Is the welfare state constitutional based on original intent or was it deemed constitutional based on the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of society at the time?

 

[Gipper]

On that point I was not disagreeing.

Is the welfare state constitutional based on original intent or was it deemed constitutional based on the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of society at the time?

Geez Gen could you find an easier question?

Of course the disastrous welfare state is NOT constitutional and is based on FEELINGS...you know libs are all about feelings and to hell with logic, reason, and the rule of law.

All the Founding Fathers railed against government welfare in some fashion or another.

A better question is, how does the SCOTUS allow this outrageous infringement of the constitution to continue?

 

[samsara15]

What welfare state? Which founding Fathers? The propertied landowners took over the Revolution, from 1783-1787.

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course, redistribution of wealth goes both ways, but I think your estimate of 75% going to the poor is way high.

75% was too high but not by much. About 2.2 Trillion was spent on the welfare state in '09, that actually equates to roughly 2/3 of the total budget, or 66%. About 21% was spent on all military and defense spending. The rest (13%) went to support all other government spending including payments on the debt.

The rich can pay for lobbyists to see that more of the gravy flows their way, after all.

More than what flowed into the welfare state? I welcome you to substantiate that claim. In the meantime, my point remains... Either it is immoral, unjust and unethical to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others or it is not. It should not matter which direction the money is flowing.

I don't quite see the issue in the same black and white way that you do

You don't even see Panda's or Zebra's as being black and white.

I generally agree that redistribution of wealth is not a good thing, regardless of which way it flows.

Is the use of force to deprive one individual of the products of his labor for the benefit of another a violation of individual rights?

The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part. That would be a distribution of wealth, but a voluntary one.

I agree, it is only by volitional consent that a redistribution of wealth can avoid being immoral, unjust and unethical.

There are some things that benefit society collectively, and should be paid for collectively. Among them are highways, bridges, railroads hospitals, schools, and public buildings.

On that we have some disagreement.

 

[citizenzen]

Living Constitution is garbage.

That is code for we will do whatever we want.

Imagine how great this country would be had we followed original intent.

Imagine how poor this country would be if we hadn't progressed socially for over 200 years.

There is nothing wrong (for the most part) with the original intent of the Constitution. Philosophically, the Founders had the right idea and we are quite fortunate to have this as our founding document. Since we're fond of quoting Thomas jefferson, perhaps you could tell me what you think of this statement...

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html​

I think this is a very reasonable statement. You neither change with every whim, nor do you unnecessarily cling to the past. It's a tricky line to walk, but I believe it is doable.

Aren't you glad I helped illuminate the original intent of one of our Founders?

 

[GenSeneca]

Imagine how poor this country would be if we hadn't progressed socially for over 200 years.

Having our government go from protecting our rights to being the primary violator of our rights is not social progress.

 

[PLC1]

75% was too high but not by much. About 2.2 Trillion was spent on the welfare state in '09, that actually equates to roughly 2/3 of the total budget, or 66%. About 21% was spent on all military and defense spending. The rest (13%) went to support all other government spending including payments on the debt.

I'm not sure just what you're counting as "welfare state" spending that totals to 2.2 trillion. That sounds like a lot. Maybe if you lump Social Security and Medicare in. Of course, SS should be a separate fund, should always have been, and shouldn't be a part of the federal budget anyway. Of course, the SS fund was dumped into the general fund back in the '60s, and spent on other things. Now, the inevitable has happened: The fund is no longer able to subsidize the rest of the government, so those IOUs have to be paid back.

For 38 years, I paid into a pension fund much like Social Security, but one that was kept separate from the state budget. After having paid 8% (same as SS) and my employers over the years having paid the same (again, same as SS) I was able to retire at 92% of my salary. When you add in the 8% that I was no longer paying into the retirement fund, that made 100%. Moreover, the pension fund is fully funded, and in no danger of going broke. Compare that to Social Security. The difference is that it actually was a retirement fund, not a subsidy to the government.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure just what you're counting as "welfare state" spending that totals to 2.2 trillion.

You should check in at the private forum more often.

The difference is that it actually was a retirement fund, not a subsidy to the government.

The difference is your retirement plan was a legitimate fund while SS from it's inception has been nothing less than a legalized Fraud, a ponzi scheme sanctioned by the government. Federal government has done on a large, intergenerational scale exactly what Bernie Maddof did, commit fraud.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part. That would be a distribution of wealth, but a voluntary one." by PLC1

Good point, but there is no charity of that type, if there was I would certainly support it.

And GenSeca, YES, I think that people should sometimes get money they don't earn. If you don't agree with that, then please tell me how your children paid their way through childhood.

You always present my position in black and white, which it is not. I don't want to see the redistribution of wealth ended until the playing field is more level, once the egregious abusers have been stripped of their super-abundance, then we can discuss the what comes next. Would you agree to ANY money going to people who don't earn it? Mentally deficient people? Paralyzed people? Orphans? Is there anyone?

 

[citizenzen]

The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part.

Good point, but there is no charity of that type, if there was I would certainly support it.

PLC1's point begs the question...

The government isn't stopping private charities from helping the poor. What makes you think that private charities alone could solve this problem when still exists even with government help? If private charities are the solution to extreme poverty, why does the problem still persist? Do you suppose these private charities are waiting for an end of government assistance before they would step in and solve the problem?

 

[PLC1]

PLC1's point begs the question...

The government isn't stopping private charities from helping the poor. What makes you think that private charities alone could solve this problem when still exists even with government help? If private charities are the solution to extreme poverty, why does the problem still persist? Do you suppose these private charities are waiting for an end of government assistance before they would step in and solve the problem?

The problem with the welfare state is that people come to depend on it. Helping out people down on their luck, while getting them up and taking care of themselves is one thing, but entitling people to money that they did not earn perpetuates dependency. Of course, the handicapped and so on that Mare mentions need to be helped, should be helped in a decent society. Healthy able people should not conclude that income depends not on work, but on the number of children they have produced.

It's a lot like feeding the bears in Yosemite, which is forbidden by the park service for good reason: Fed bears lose the ability to fend for themselves. Now, come back and tell me that I'm saying that welfare recipients are bears if you want, but that's not the point. Taking care of someone indefinitely produces someone who can not take care of themselves.

Charity should be just that, charity, and no one should think that they are entitled to it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The problem with the welfare state is that people come to depend on it. Helping out people down on their luck, while getting them up and taking care of themselves is one thing, but entitling people to money that they did not earn perpetuates dependency. Of course, the handicapped and so on that Mare mentions need to be helped, should be helped in a decent society. Healthy able people should not conclude that income depends not on work, but on the number of children they have produced.

It's a lot like feeding the bears in Yosemite, which is forbidden by the park service for good reason: Fed bears lose the ability to fend for themselves. Now, come back and tell me that I'm saying that welfare recipients are bears if you want, but that's not the point. Taking care of someone indefinitely produces someone who can not take care of themselves.

Charity should be just that, charity, and no one should think that they are entitled to it.

That is certainly true. What we need to do is not give people charity necessarilly (though I think there is a time and place for that) but we need to make sure that there are opportunities for them to work and care for themselves. The coal, oil, and nuclear industries have been getting subsidies for generations, they too can come to depend on the government just like individuals.

Instead of the government making it easier for jobs to be outsourced they should be making it more difficult. Less money should be funneled down the military and far more into infrastructure that produces jobs right here improving America. Instead of being the world's largest seller of weapons we should be investing in technology to make the world more efficient and be the world leader in selling that.

 

[GenSeneca]

Good point, but there is no charity of that type, if there was I would certainly support it.

What do you mean "there are no charities of that type"? All charities receive their support by voluntary donations. Any "charity" that gets its funding by forced contributions is not a charity.

And GenSeca, YES, I think that people should sometimes get money they don't earn.

That's great. You should have the freedom to choose whether or not to donate money and time to such people. You should not be forced to do so because that would be a violation of your rights.

If you don't agree with that, then please tell me how your children paid their way through childhood.

I agree that we should have the freedom to choose whether or not to donate our money and time to individuals who have done nothing to earn it but I disagree that everyone should be forced to donate to such persons.

As for children, while I haven't any children, my children are my responsibility and your children are yours. You should not be forced to subsidize my children and I should not be forced to subsidize yours. Any support should be volitional, not compulsory.

You always present my position in black and white, which it is not.

You support the violation of individual rights. That's pretty cut and dry.

I don't want to see the redistribution of wealth ended until the playing field is more level

This is where you still fail to comprehend the issue. It is because the forced redistribution of wealth is legal that the rich can use their influence to unfairly accumulate wealth.

You cannot end their ability to violate your rights while retaining your ability to violate theirs, it doesn't work like that... And you don't want it to work like that... if such a legal system were established, those rich people could eliminate your ability to violate their rights while retaining their ability to violate yours.

Let me put in terms of one of our other rights, in hopes that you can see this issue more clearly, the right to free speech. If the government is allowed to violate our right to free speech and silence anyone they wish, Fred would use his pull with government to try and silence Paul and vice versa. The result would be that both Fred and Paul would have their right to free speech violated and both would complain about the other infringing on their rights without understanding that it was the government that made the violation of rights possible.

I come along and say that if we eliminate governments ability to legally violate free speech, then both men are once again free to speak.

You come along and say that Fred has too much to say, so his right to free speech should be curtailed, while Paul should have absolutely no restrictions on his freedom of speech.

The problem is government, not Fred, not Paul. Government is simply the tool the men use to violate each others rights. You cannot limit the use of that tool to just one person, so long as the tool exists, both men are going to use it. The only solution is to eliminate the tool, eliminate governments legal ability to violate the rights of any individual.

Would you agree to ANY money going to people who don't earn it? Mentally deficient people? Paralyzed people? Orphans? Is there anyone?

Absolutely, but it should be voluntary, not compulsory.

 

[citizenzen]

The problem with the welfare state is that people come to depend on it.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but are you saying that if no welfare state existed, that poverty would be so manageable that private charities alone could see to the needs of the poor?

Is poverty and need an invention of the welfare state? History doesn't seem to affirm that assumption.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Absolutely, but it should be voluntary, not compulsory.

And when there is not enough given voluntarily, then we simply let them die in the streets to be eaten by the dogs?

Bedtime, it's been a long day. I begin to suspect that you and I may not always agree on things, GenSeca, but I'm guessing that as long as we have a greed-based system and a portion of the population who are greedy and rapacious that we will need laws to regulate their rapacity. You disagree, I suspect, but such is life.