The Welfare Myth

[Blinocac200sx]

Go back and read the thread from the beginning, the attitude is to let kids starve. Welfare is such a small blip on the map of our problems that it's barely worth discussion.

You can't name names because it's not true.

 

[HMFIC]

But the gov keeps running around telling us we are going to die!

LOL. Ya we all do... eventually.

 

[freeranger]

For additional understanding of "general welfare", take a look at the Virginia Report of 1799 presented by J.W. Randolph. (http://constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.htm)

After the presentation of the fourth resolution, the topic of general welfare is mentioned in the first point:

1. The general phrases here meant must be those "of providing for the common defence and general welfare."

In the "articles of confederation," the phrases are used as follows, in Art. VIII. "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare, and allowed by the United Slates in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to, or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated, according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall from time to time direct and appoint."

In the existing Constitution, they make the following part of Sec. 8, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great federal charters, might well be considered, as rendering their meaning less liable to be misconstrued in the latter; because it will scarcely be said, that in the former they were ever understood to be either a general grant of power, or to authorize the requisition or application of money by the old Congress to the common defence and general welfare, except in the cases afterwards enumerated, which explained and limited their meaning; and if such was the limited meaning attached to these phrases in the very instrument revised and remodelled by the present Constitution, it can never be supposed that when copied into this Constitution, a different meaning ought to be attached to them.

That, notwithstanding this remarkable security against misconstruction, a design has been indicated to expound these phrases in the Constitution, so as to destroy the effect of the particular enumeration of powers by which it explains and limits them, must have fallen under the observation of those who have attended to the course of public transactions. Not to multiply proofs on this subject, it will suffice to refer to the debates of the federal legislature, in which arguments have on different occasions been drawn, with apparent effect, from these phrases, in their indefinite meaning.

To these indications might be added, without looking farther, the official report on manufactures, by the late Secretary of the Treasury, made. on the 5th of December, 1791; and the report of a committee of Congress, in January, 1797, on the promotion of agriculture. In the first of these it is expressly contended to belong "to the discretion of the national legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of LEARNING, of AGRICULTURE, of MANUFACTURES, and of COMMERCE, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards the application of money."7 The latter report assumes the same latitude of power in the national councils, and applies it to the encouragement of agriculture by means of a society to be established at the seat of government.8 Although neither of these reports may have received the sanction of a law carrying it into effect, yet, on the other hand, the extraordinary doctrine contained in both, has passed without the slightest positive mark of disapprobation from the authority to which it was addressed.

Now, whether the phrases in question be construed to authorize every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some; or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others; the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers which follow these general phrases in the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude, which, in its exercise, does not involve or admit an application of money. The government, therefore, which possesses power in either one or other of these extents, is a government without the limitations formed by a particular enumeration of powers; and consequently, the meaning and effect of this particular enumeration is destroyed by the exposition given to these general phrases.

This conclusion will not be affected by an attempt to qualify the power over the "general welfare," by referring it to cases where the general welfare is beyond the reach of separate provisions by the individual states; and leaving to these their jurisdictions, in cases to which their separate provisions may be competent. For, as the authority of the individual states must in all cases be incompetent to general regulations operating through the whole, the authority of the United States would be extended to every object relating to the general welfare, which might, by any possibility, be provided for by the general authority. This qualifying construction, therefore, would have little, if any tendency, to circumscribe the power claimed under the latitude of the terms "general welfare."

The true and fair construction of this expression, both in the original and existing federal compacts, appears to the committee too obvious to be mistaken. In both, the Congress is authorized to provide money for the common defence and general welfare. In both, is subjoined to this authority, an enumeration of the cases to which their powers shall extend. Money cannot be applied to the general welfare otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measures, conducive to the general welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the general authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. This fair and obvious interpretation coincides with, and is enforced by the clause in the Constitution, which declares, that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations by law." An appropriation of money to the general welfare would be deemed rather a mockery than an observance of this constitutional injunction.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Let me re-state "how bad it is". I'm not advocating that Welfare is good by any means. I'm stating that the problem of large-percentages of people being on welfare is not as bad a problem as its being made out to be. It's also not isolated to those states we love to bash (or even that it's somehow worse in those states than red states as a whole).

It's just funny to me that a lot of folks on here are talking about how all these welfare recipients are voting for Obama, when several of the red-states have more of a percentage of welfare recipients than blue states.

But don't let me F@#$ this whole thread up with facts...

Funny how the actual topic of this thread was ignored for 7 pages and instead we got a quasi-philosophical discussion on the ethics and constitutionality of social justice as a component of government.

Also funny how poor southern folks, many on the dole, have become classical economic liberals now. It's just a continuation of the Southern Strategy with slight alterations. The deep south was a democratic stronghold until the civil rights act of '64 flipped in and Goldwater took those democratic-voting segregationists by selling "states rights". Yep, the same "states rights" the GOP is still selling today. The GOP is preying on a largely poor/working-class populace by appealing to their fears. It was anti-black racism in the 60's, now it's "religious freedom" and "sanctity of marriage" and "illegal aliens" and yeah, still states rights. Hahaha, states rights was the exact term that made these folks GOP voters in 50 years ago. That fiddle is still in tune and poor folks still dance to it. Foreign policy plays a big role in how the GOP gets their votes as well. Economics is a very small part of it.

OSA has a lot of members a little better educated than average, most somewhat well read. Politically-aware guys with strong opinions on government's role in the economy. This is not a good representation of the average GOP voter. You're reading Rand and Von Mises and they're reading cereal boxes and voting for the Republican because the man on TV said the Democrats are for change and change is scary. The average deep-south GOP voter didn't decide he was a laissez-faire capitalist and start reading about classical liberalism in 7th grade like some of you guys. You're playing for the same team, but you're there because you believe in your team. They're there for free hot dogs.

But I could be wrong. You know, because all these GOP voters really care passionately about capital gains taxes and the constitutionality of welfare. It also totally makes sense that all of them are vehemently opposed to government involvement in healthcare. Ya now, beliefs totally congruous with the reality of their daily lives and all.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

You can't name names because it's not true.

Sure it is. Some people don't like the idea of helping others, that's fine, that's why the government takes our money and helps these people. The down side of feeding kids is that we end up having to feed their parents. Like I said earlier, the system is broken, but we cannot let kids go hungry.

 

[WTJ]

I am fine with helping others provided it does not become a perpetual condition. I am NOT good with being forced to contribute, with absolutely no say, to an extremely broken system.

It is not help in many cases. It is wealth redistribution, as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs." Ultimately, this practice, among others, destroys civilizations.

 

[RidgeHunter]

A friend last week was telling me about how her family continually freaks out over "Obamacare" even though poverty, medical debt defaults, bankruptcy, and government financial aid are things they are intimately familiar with. She questions them further on the subject like "Hey, how can you be poor and bankrupt due to medical bills and be a welfare user and be this strongly opposed to this healthcare plan?" and they answer "Obamacare won't fix anything it'll just make it worse."

GOP voters are never poor, they're just temporarily inconvenienced millionaires. Never do they take a handout, they only take a hand up. Keep my tax rates low up there in them brackets! Imma comin'!

 

[aestus]

Funny how the actual topic of this thread was ignored for 7 pages and instead we got a quasi-philosophical discussion on the ethics and constitutionality of social justice as a component of government.

Also funny how poor southern folks, many on the dole, have become classical economic liberals now. It's just a continuation of the Southern Strategy with slight alterations. The deep south was a democratic stronghold until the civil rights act of '64 flipped in and Goldwater took those democratic-voting segregationists by selling "states rights". Yep, the same "states rights" the GOP is still selling today. The GOP is preying on a largely poor/working-class populace by appealing to their fears. It was anti-black racism in the 60's, now it's "religious freedom" and "sanctity of marriage" and "illegal aliens" and yeah, still states rights. Hahaha, states rights was the exact term that made these folks GOP voters in 50 years ago. That fiddle is still in tune and poor folks still dance to it. Foreign policy plays a big role in how the GOP gets their votes as well. Economics is a very small part of it.

OSA has a lot of members a little better educated than average, most somewhat well read. Politically-aware guys with strong opinions on government's role in the economy. This is not a good representation of the average GOP voter. You're reading Rand and Von Mises and they're reading cereal boxes and voting for the Republican because the man on TV said the Democrats are for change and change is scary. The average deep-south GOP voter didn't decide he was a laissez-faire capitalist and start reading about classical liberalism in 7th grade like some of you guys. You're playing for the same team, but you're there because you believe in your team. They're there for free hot dogs.

But I could be wrong. You know, because all these GOP voters really care passionately about capital gains taxes and the constitutionality of welfare. It also totally makes sense that all of them are vehemently opposed to government involvement in healthcare. Ya now, beliefs totally congruous with the reality of their daily lives and all.

I couldn't have said this better myself.

This same thing is true for liberals. There's a few who are well educated and believe in their "team." Then you have the rest of them who are there because it makes them feel good about themselves.

 

[RidgeHunter]

I am fine with helping others provided it does not become a perpetual condition. I am NOT good with being forced to contribute, with absolutely no say, to an extremely broken system.

It is not help in many cases. It is wealth redistribution, as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs." Ultimately, this practice, among others, destroys civilizations.

See, even the classical liberal and progressive hater WTJ can't commit. I think only Blinocac and maybe DustingAunder have committed in this thread. Broken system, functional system. It's still the same system.

Basically I have no problem with you guys who are strongly opposed to social justice as a component of government a la Blinocac or however he spells it. At least you can articulate it and remain consistent.
The part that's annoying is "moocher" talk for them GOP mainstream, who the above minority does not have a lot in common with. Romeny's 47% moocher comments being defended by anyone but someone fundamentally opposed to any and all government assistance is completely laughable. Always love how Republicans are all for "cutting the moochers"..."except when". Oh shut up. Except when they vote R, right? You're either a social-justice believing liberal or you ain't. Pick a team. Welfare is acceptable or it's not.

Basically the republican platform is welfare is wrong unless it's doled out of a republican-ran welfare office to fellow republicans by republican volunteers and you must present a screenshot of your republican-marked ballot on your RomneyPhone to get your check. The sign out front of the office will read "HAND UP LINE FOR TEMPORARILY INCONVENIENCED VENTURE CAPITALISTS"

 

[HMFIC]

The world is full of irony.

Just ask all of the liberal dictators in our regime who don't mind having their own personal gestapo details but puke "guns bad" blather at every turn.