C'mon, dude, of course not. But again, we do our best and we find our place. Were I more dilligent I could do more. Had I made better choices I'd have more oppurtunity. Effort really has no maximum.
with the technology available today its been estimated we could eliminate 90% of ALL jobs. Notice how when new technology is invented they don't shorten the work week, they downsize? Its an inherent flaw in the system, that which is often the best option for humanity is not necessarily the path they choose. Profit guides them. and so there can never be an ethical society, a moral society, even a decent society with this as the guiding principle behind policy. And with wealth concentrating into few and fewer hands, less concern will be given to the have-nots, and thats been seen through poverty rates to infant mortality rates, all over the world.
Corporations are fascist institutions, the second you punch that time card you enter into a dictatorship.
If I had a trust fund....If my parents had bought me a car...had I been able to afford college...but that's cryin in your coffee there. I choose to man up and deal. My task, now that I am a father is to expedite the evolutionary process for my kids.
You provide for your kids, that's natural, but the reason why is artificial. Monetary based societies are inherently flawed, and as my sig says, it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society, or even no measure of success to be considered wealthy in a wage enslaved society. By playing by their rules you legitimize the system, which at its very core brings our the worst in human behavior.
In nature there are very few, if any, examples of independence. Animals work together and end up with a certain balance and prosperity. Humans, for reasons of control and profit, have been outside this relationship since the beginning of government.
I will provide for my children more tools to succeed than my parents did me. And hopefully, they will evolve beyond me. And continue the progression for their children... that's how it's supposed to go. In the end, that's the only legacy we leave.
You measure your evolutionary progress in terms of wealth? you can't be serious?
my idea of progress is when
you close your bank accounts.
when you turn off the tv.
when you refuse to join the military.
when you find an alternative fuel source vehicle
when you reject the political system, instead of joining and trying to "succeed" in it.
You measure your evolutionary progress in terms of wealth? you can't be serious?
my idea of progress is when
you close your bank accounts.
when you turn off the tv.
when you refuse to join the military.
when you find an alternative fuel source vehicle
when you reject the political system, instead of joining and trying to "succeed" in it.
aww, the Zeitgeist Manifesto , how cute, I know it well.
Why don't you do some reading before you regurgitate propaganda to me like a mindless troll. Educate yourself.
As fas as a resource based economy goes, I find it to be an appealing concept. The reality is that Freso's economy is woefully under-engineered at this point. It's a joke to think that it is a viable society at this point.
I think it's important for the people decrying welfare to give us a description of what they define that word to mean. I think I am using it broadly then you must be. You all seem to be describing welfare as the food stamps and cash in hand, which was what the strict definition of welfare certainly used to be. But that's not where the funds go anymore, and that's not the type of social programs that have been gutted over the past eight years. I believe last year that 7 billion dollars in the federal budget went towards so-called "handouts." Of course, it's alot of money, but when you consider well over 500 billion dollars going to Social Security and 700 billion goes to defense, it's not the kind of welfare that has been prominent in the past decade. What has been gutted has not been handouts; it's been early childhood education. It's been affordable housing. These are not checks in hand, but community development; are you making a differentiation?
The person who said that the government doesn't require compassion, you're right. What it does require, according to the Constitution of the United States, is that our country's institutions, among other things, "provide for the general welfare." The Declaration of Independence promised the oft-quoted "pursuit of happiness." How is a pursuit possible when citizens are dealing with a rigged deck (whether purposefully rigged or not, the deck is rigged nonetheless). The Constitution grants the government power to levy taxes for the sake of "the general welfare" of the U.S. and its' citizens. How are we living up to the ideals of our constitution if we do not work to ensure that every citizen has the tools to succeed; that the avenues of success are not closed to them? This is not only responsible and humane, but it is constitutional.
My other question is why there is no middle ground to be found when it comes to how our government responds to social inequity. The way some of you are talking, community development and financial aid is the scourge of the earth, and I wonder why. No form of government or financial system is perfect, remember Churchill; "democracy is the worst form of the government besides all the others." Capitalism is better than socialism in my opinion; it fosters individual growth. But why are we not acknowledging that capitalism has problems, and one of them is that it enhances a cycle of poverty that tends to continue through generations? Why can't we tackle that without resorting to socialism? You're jumping immediately to extremes.
And prytoj, I'd still be interested to hear how you could vote for McCain (assuming that is who you intend to vote for), when his heath care tax credit operates in the exact same manner as Obama's. Aren't they then both engaging in socialist practices?
I think it's important for the people decrying welfare to give us a description of what they define that word to mean. I think I am using it broadly then you must be. You all seem to be describing welfare as the food stamps and cash in hand, which was what the strict definition of welfare certainly used to be. But that's not where the funds go anymore, and that's not the type of social programs that have been gutted over the past eight years. I believe last year that 7 billion dollars in the federal budget went towards so-called "handouts." Of course, it's alot of money, but when you consider well over 500 billion dollars going to Social Security and 700 billion goes to defense, it's not the kind of welfare that has been prominent in the past decade. What has been gutted has not been handouts; it's been early childhood education. It's been affordable housing. These are not checks in hand, but community development; are you making a differentiation?
The person who said that the government doesn't require compassion, you're right. What it does require, according to the Constitution of the United States, is that our country's institutions, among other things, "provide for the general welfare." The Declaration of Independence promised the oft-quoted "pursuit of happiness." How is a pursuit possible when citizens are dealing with a rigged deck (whether purposefully rigged or not, the deck is rigged nonetheless). The Constitution grants the government power to levy taxes for the sake of "the general welfare" of the U.S. and its' citizens. How are we living up to the ideals of our constitution if we do not work to ensure that every citizen has the tools to succeed; that the avenues of success are not closed to them? This is not only responsible and humane, but it is constitutional.
My other question is why there is no middle ground to be found when it comes to how our government responds to social inequity. The way some of you are talking, community development and financial aid is the scourge of the earth, and I wonder why. No form of government or financial system is perfect, remember Churchill; "democracy is the worst form of the government besides all the others." Capitalism is better than socialism in my opinion; it fosters individual growth. But why are we not acknowledging that capitalism has problems, and one of them is that it enhances a cycle of poverty that tends to continue through generations? Why can't we tackle that without resorting to socialism? You're jumping immediately to extremes.
And prytoj, I'd still be interested to hear how you could vote for McCain (assuming that is who you intend to vote for), when his heath care tax credit operates in the exact same manner as Obama's. Aren't they then both engaging in socialist practices?
How am I supposed to switch my vote on those grounds? Not that I would
If nobody else answers your other quaestions, we can debate that tomorrow night. time for bed.
How am I supposed to switch my vote on those grounds? Not that I would
If nobody else answers your other quaestions, we can debate that tomorrow night. time for bed.
Because you're calling Obama's policies socialist. If he is making a tax credit that works in an identical manner, than his policies are therefore socialist as well. Considering his support for the bailout, his health care tax credit, and his plan for the government to buy up mortgages of homeowners, by your own standards it seems that a McCain presidency would be "unacceptable" as well.
Because you're calling Obama's policies socialist. If he is making a tax credit that works in an identical manner, than his policies are therefore socialist as well. Considering his support for the bailout, his health care tax credit, and his plan for the government to buy up mortgages of homeowners, by your own standards it seems that a McCain presidency would be "unacceptable" as well.
There are so many reasons, but we've been through all those threads in the last week, no? I thought you were there, too. we can revisit that i guess.
Anyway, I feel like you're asking me to vote for a socialist from socialist party, over a socialist from a capitalist party, if i'm getting your point. I mean, do you want me to explain what I love about John McCain? That's a looong post, but I'm game. I certainly don't remember defending either proposal, however. I remember saying one is better than the other.
His tax credit system is applied evenly, however, accoring to the graphs as I recall them. But I'd have to re-read the report if you'd like a decent take from me on the proposal.
The person who said that the government doesn't require compassion, you're right. What it does require, according to the Constitution of the United States, is that our country's institutions, among other things, "provide for the general welfare." The Declaration of Independence promised the oft-quoted "pursuit of happiness." How is a pursuit possible when citizens are dealing with a rigged deck (whether purposefully rigged or not, the deck is rigged nonetheless). The Constitution grants the government power to levy taxes for the sake of "the general welfare" of the U.S. and its' citizens. How are we living up to the ideals of our constitution if we do not work to ensure that every citizen has the tools to succeed; that the avenues of success are not closed to them? This is not only responsible and humane, but it is constitutional.
From your point of view, providing for the general welfare renders the rest of the constitution meaningless because the government can do whatever it wants.
From your point of view, providing for the general welfare renders the rest of the constitution meaningless because the government can do whatever it wants.
I'm not sure how anyone would read that into what I said. How does providing for and promoting the general welfare negate the most important job of the government, which is defense? How does it remove states' rights? Engage in relations with foreign countries? Nothing I put in that post was made up; the Constitution states all those things blatantly. There may be arguments about how it applies (as there always is with the Constitution), but none of it's unfounded.
I'm not sure how anyone would read that into what I said. How does providing for and promoting the general welfare negate the most important job of the government, which is defense? How does it remove states' rights? Engage in relations with foreign countries? Nothing I put in that post was made up; the Constitution states all those things blatantly. There may be arguments about how it applies (as there always is with the Constitution), but none of it's unfounded.
It doesn't negate anything, it allows the federal government to arbitrarily do anything it wants under the guise of "promoting the general welfare".
An excerpt from the book "James Madison and the Future of Limited Government":
"Madison spoke and wrote often about the General Welfare Clause because it was a source of congressional mischief from the start. Indeed, Hamilton was of the view that the clause granted Congress an independent power to spend for the general welfare, provided only that spending was general and not particular or local. That was not the dominant view, however. In fact, Madison, Jefferson, and many others were at pains to point out that if that reading were correct, then enumerating Congress' other powers would have been pointless, since anytime Congress wanted to do something that it was spending for the general welfare. Given the prominence of the doctrine of enumerated powers in the minds of the Framers--indeed, many thought it obviated the need for a bill of rights--it is difficult to believe that many Framers thought they were giving Congress so unbounded a power--much less that ratification would have succeeded under such an understanding."
It doesn't negate anything, it allows the federal government to arbitrarily do anything it wants under the guise of "promoting the general welfare".
An excerpt from the book "James Madison and the Future of Limited Government":
"Madison spoke and wrote often about the General Welfare Clause because it was a source of congressional mischief from the start. Indeed, Hamilton was of the view that the clause granted Congress an independent power to spend for the general welfare, provided only that spending was general and not particular or local. That was not the dominant view, however. In fact, Madison, Jefferson, and many others were at pains to point out that if that reading were correct, then enumerating Congress' other powers would have been pointless, since anytime Congress wanted to do something that it was spending for the general welfare. Given the prominence of the doctrine of enumerated powers in the minds of the Framers--indeed, many thought it obviated the need for a bill of rights--it is difficult to believe that many Framers thought they were giving Congress so unbounded a power--much less that ratification would have succeeded under such an understanding."
By that definition, the federal government can also arbitrarily do anything it wants for the sake of the "common defense", and to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." If anything, this has been the more common excuse for government spending or action in recent history than welfare. These are the mission statements; it's no surprise to anyone that the Constitution is vague. Despite Madison's misgivings, the fact remains that it is still included in the Constitution, even though we've shown in the past that we are willing to add and remove elements if necessary.
I appreciate the quote; it's very illuminating, and not surprising that arguably the framers' most vehement proponents of a strict reading of the Constitution would be opposed to a broader definition of 'welfare.' The fact is we must interpret our Constitution as best, and if they expected it to remain strict then it would have defined it more strictly. The fact is that we don't live in a horse-and-buggy society anymore. Many strict readers of the Constitution may disagree with the idea that the Constitution must be analyzed and applied in the context of the times (how else could you explain the three-fifths compromise?), but I think such a view is simply unrealistic. And the fact is, many American citizens consider a quality education "the general welfare". They consider affordable housing vital to the general welfare. Health care. Since the framers didn't specifically define this term, it's up to we the people to define it. This is my definition, and I think it's easily supported.
Comments
with the technology available today its been estimated we could eliminate 90% of ALL jobs. Notice how when new technology is invented they don't shorten the work week, they downsize? Its an inherent flaw in the system, that which is often the best option for humanity is not necessarily the path they choose. Profit guides them. and so there can never be an ethical society, a moral society, even a decent society with this as the guiding principle behind policy. And with wealth concentrating into few and fewer hands, less concern will be given to the have-nots, and thats been seen through poverty rates to infant mortality rates, all over the world.
Corporations are fascist institutions, the second you punch that time card you enter into a dictatorship.
You provide for your kids, that's natural, but the reason why is artificial. Monetary based societies are inherently flawed, and as my sig says, it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society, or even no measure of success to be considered wealthy in a wage enslaved society. By playing by their rules you legitimize the system, which at its very core brings our the worst in human behavior.
In nature there are very few, if any, examples of independence. Animals work together and end up with a certain balance and prosperity. Humans, for reasons of control and profit, have been outside this relationship since the beginning of government.
You measure your evolutionary progress in terms of wealth? you can't be serious?
my idea of progress is when
you close your bank accounts.
when you turn off the tv.
when you refuse to join the military.
when you find an alternative fuel source vehicle
when you reject the political system, instead of joining and trying to "succeed" in it.
aww, the Zeitgeist Manifesto , how cute, I know it well.
fed.gov
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
http://www.ushistory.org
us.gov
Why don't you do some reading before you regurgitate propaganda to me like a mindless troll. Educate yourself.
As fas as a resource based economy goes, I find it to be an appealing concept. The reality is that Freso's economy is woefully under-engineered at this point. It's a joke to think that it is a viable society at this point.
The person who said that the government doesn't require compassion, you're right. What it does require, according to the Constitution of the United States, is that our country's institutions, among other things, "provide for the general welfare." The Declaration of Independence promised the oft-quoted "pursuit of happiness." How is a pursuit possible when citizens are dealing with a rigged deck (whether purposefully rigged or not, the deck is rigged nonetheless). The Constitution grants the government power to levy taxes for the sake of "the general welfare" of the U.S. and its' citizens. How are we living up to the ideals of our constitution if we do not work to ensure that every citizen has the tools to succeed; that the avenues of success are not closed to them? This is not only responsible and humane, but it is constitutional.
My other question is why there is no middle ground to be found when it comes to how our government responds to social inequity. The way some of you are talking, community development and financial aid is the scourge of the earth, and I wonder why. No form of government or financial system is perfect, remember Churchill; "democracy is the worst form of the government besides all the others." Capitalism is better than socialism in my opinion; it fosters individual growth. But why are we not acknowledging that capitalism has problems, and one of them is that it enhances a cycle of poverty that tends to continue through generations? Why can't we tackle that without resorting to socialism? You're jumping immediately to extremes.
And prytoj, I'd still be interested to hear how you could vote for McCain (assuming that is who you intend to vote for), when his heath care tax credit operates in the exact same manner as Obama's. Aren't they then both engaging in socialist practices?
How am I supposed to switch my vote on those grounds? Not that I would
If nobody else answers your other quaestions, we can debate that tomorrow night. time for bed.
Because you're calling Obama's policies socialist. If he is making a tax credit that works in an identical manner, than his policies are therefore socialist as well. Considering his support for the bailout, his health care tax credit, and his plan for the government to buy up mortgages of homeowners, by your own standards it seems that a McCain presidency would be "unacceptable" as well.
There are so many reasons, but we've been through all those threads in the last week, no? I thought you were there, too. we can revisit that i guess.
Anyway, I feel like you're asking me to vote for a socialist from socialist party, over a socialist from a capitalist party, if i'm getting your point. I mean, do you want me to explain what I love about John McCain? That's a looong post, but I'm game. I certainly don't remember defending either proposal, however. I remember saying one is better than the other.
His tax credit system is applied evenly, however, accoring to the graphs as I recall them. But I'd have to re-read the report if you'd like a decent take from me on the proposal.
Seriously, now i gotta sleep.
From your point of view, providing for the general welfare renders the rest of the constitution meaningless because the government can do whatever it wants.
I'm not sure how anyone would read that into what I said. How does providing for and promoting the general welfare negate the most important job of the government, which is defense? How does it remove states' rights? Engage in relations with foreign countries? Nothing I put in that post was made up; the Constitution states all those things blatantly. There may be arguments about how it applies (as there always is with the Constitution), but none of it's unfounded.
It doesn't negate anything, it allows the federal government to arbitrarily do anything it wants under the guise of "promoting the general welfare".
An excerpt from the book "James Madison and the Future of Limited Government":
"Madison spoke and wrote often about the General Welfare Clause because it was a source of congressional mischief from the start. Indeed, Hamilton was of the view that the clause granted Congress an independent power to spend for the general welfare, provided only that spending was general and not particular or local. That was not the dominant view, however. In fact, Madison, Jefferson, and many others were at pains to point out that if that reading were correct, then enumerating Congress' other powers would have been pointless, since anytime Congress wanted to do something that it was spending for the general welfare. Given the prominence of the doctrine of enumerated powers in the minds of the Framers--indeed, many thought it obviated the need for a bill of rights--it is difficult to believe that many Framers thought they were giving Congress so unbounded a power--much less that ratification would have succeeded under such an understanding."
By that definition, the federal government can also arbitrarily do anything it wants for the sake of the "common defense", and to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." If anything, this has been the more common excuse for government spending or action in recent history than welfare. These are the mission statements; it's no surprise to anyone that the Constitution is vague. Despite Madison's misgivings, the fact remains that it is still included in the Constitution, even though we've shown in the past that we are willing to add and remove elements if necessary.
I appreciate the quote; it's very illuminating, and not surprising that arguably the framers' most vehement proponents of a strict reading of the Constitution would be opposed to a broader definition of 'welfare.' The fact is we must interpret our Constitution as best, and if they expected it to remain strict then it would have defined it more strictly. The fact is that we don't live in a horse-and-buggy society anymore. Many strict readers of the Constitution may disagree with the idea that the Constitution must be analyzed and applied in the context of the times (how else could you explain the three-fifths compromise?), but I think such a view is simply unrealistic. And the fact is, many American citizens consider a quality education "the general welfare". They consider affordable housing vital to the general welfare. Health care. Since the framers didn't specifically define this term, it's up to we the people to define it. This is my definition, and I think it's easily supported.