• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Welfare, the ACA, higher minimum wage all come with a cost.

Bob Blaylock said:
Those on the right tend to put their money where their mouths are.

Those on the wrong tend to only put other people's money—but not so much their own money—where their mouths are. And then they piously boast about how “generous” and “caring” they are, while condemning the right for being “greedy”.
Click to expand...

Compare the giving of Romney over Obama.

The Obama's put their money into their mouths.....and world trips for Michelle.
 
Wiseone said:
Being taxed doesn't violate your Constitutional rights
Click to expand...

did not say it did, i responded to you, because you responded to another poster, who stated this:
MrVicchio said:
So you're all for pushing your views on others through force. Nice to know you favor forcing your morality through goverment power on society.
Click to expand...

you in turn stated this:
Wiseone said:
Welcome to life where sometimes to function in an orderly society you have to do things you don't want to.
Click to expand...

so my response was to say if you believe force can be used on another person who has done no wrong, i guess constitutional law gets in your way.

as for taxes, they are to be used for the powers of government, and its operations, anything outside that sphere is unconstitutional.
 
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
 
ernst barkmann said:
did not say it did, i responded to you, because you responded to another poster, who stated this:

you in turn stated this:

so my response was to say if you believe force can be used on another person who has done no wrong, i guess constitutional law gets in your way.

as for taxes, they are to be used for the powers of government, and its operations, anything outside that sphere is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You know there's a difference between Constitutional law and your open of what the Constitution means? Just because you think it violates Constitutional law doesn't mean it does, the SCOTUS certainly disagrees with you.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
because there exists a scrooge like attitude toward the poor in todays society.
Click to expand...

"Today's" society? Looks to me that charitable contributions are stronger than ever.

FU.jpg

Of course...this is all bad news for Mother Government. Ever dollar given in charities is just one dollar less dependent the plebes are on welfare. This makes 0bama cry.
 
Wiseone said:
You know there's a difference between Constitutional law and your open of what the Constitution means? Just because you think it violates Constitutional law doesn't mean it does, the SCOTUS certainly disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

lets see what the constitution says along with the founders

article 1 section 1...very first line

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

here·in
ˌhi(ə)rˈin/
adverb
formal
adverb: herein

1. in this document or book.

are programs part of the delegated powers of congress?

do you see any of the powers of congress have anything to do with the personal lives of the people?

what do the founders say on the legislative powers of government?

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83


Madison father of the Constitution is very clear in federalist 45, .....were he states the federal government has NO authority [legislative] in the life's liberty and property of the people, that such a power is reserved to the states.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


one thing people do not understand is: .....when you allow government to provide material goods and services to the people, you allow the government to have control over your very life's...which is why the founders created a limited government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
lets see what the constitution says along with the founders

article 1 section 1...very first line

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

here·in
ˌhi(ə)rˈin/
adverb
formal
adverb: herein

1. in this document or book.

are programs part of the delegated powers of congress?

do you see any of the powers of congress have anything to do with the personal lives of the people?

what do the founders say on the legislative powers of government?

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83


Madison father of the Constitution is very clear in federalist 45, .....were he states the federal government has NO authority [legislative] in the life's liberty and property of the people, that such a power is reserved to the states.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


one thing people do not understand is: .....when you allow government to provide material goods and services to the people, you allow the government to have control over your very life's...which is why the founders created a limited government.
Click to expand...

Like I said, your opinion isn't reality.

And really to be honest with you, I don't care what it says. The government investing in its own people makes a much better society for everyone to live in, it allows our nation to say that we've advanced so far that we've eliminated starvation.

You want me to support a platform that gives you a slightly lower tax rate and let people die for it? No, not going to happen.
 
Wiseone said:
Like I said, your opinion isn't reality.

And really to be honest with you, I don't care what it says. The government investing in its own people makes a much better society for everyone to live in, it allows our nation to say that we've advanced so far that we've eliminated starvation.

You want me to support a platform that gives you a slightly lower tax rate and let people die for it? No, not going to happen.
Click to expand...


i didn't list my opinion, i listed facts...stated by Madison ,Jefferson, Hamilton.

as to your final statement, it is not based in law, but only your personal feelings.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i didn't list my opinion, i listed facts...stated by Madison ,Jefferson, Hamilton.

as to your final statement, it is not based in law, but only your personal feelings.
Click to expand...

Those are opinions too. And believe it or not its the SCOTUS of today that makes these determinations of men who lived over 200 years ago.

Anyway let me ask you whats morally superior to tax you less or to let someone starve because they lack the means to support themselves?
 
Wiseone said:
Those are opinions too. And believe it or not its the SCOTUS of today that makes these determinations of men who lived over 200 years ago.

Anyway let me ask you whats morally superior to tax you less or to let someone starve because they lack the means to support themselves?
Click to expand...

no they are not, Madison is the father of the Constitution, i am sure it knows very well what the Constitution means.

government is not a moral AUTHORITY.

as stated , states are the one with powers concerning people life's, you act as though the federal government was not involved, people would die...this is not true.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no they are not, Madison is the father of the Constitution, i am sure it knows very well what the Constitution means.

government is not a moral AUTHORITY.

as stated , states are the one with powers concerning people life's, you act as though the federal government was not involved, people would die...this is not true.
Click to expand...

Uh people would die, and go hungry, and uneducated, and a lot of things that would make society worse for everyone.

Also the Constitution has changed a lot since Madison's day, just so you know. And if you think it makes sense to live your live based on political writings over 200 years old you're crazier than I thought, they make good reading, interesting points, and sometimes even useful insight but its hardly iron clad law.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
because there exists a scrooge like attitude toward the poor in todays society.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t always like that. I am wondering if government didn’t help create that scrooge mentality. I grew up before Medicare, before welfare, food stamps and the like. Most of that stuff didn’t come around until the middle 60’s. But where I was from people took care of people, family taking care of family, neighbor taking care of neighbor, community taking care of community. We had can, food, and clothes drives in school, by churches by charities. People gave of their time, their energy and their money to help others. Local charities, churches, etc. gave to the poor and were always available to help out those in need. A neighbors barn get blown down by a tornado or something, the next day there would be 20 men there to help fix it or build a new one. The women would be cooking.

Even the doctors in my little community has a clinic that they took turn running for the poor that couldn’t afford to pay. But all of that is gone, now a days, all the people do is point whoever is hard up to the nearest government office and think they help that person. No more giving of one’s time, energy and money anymore. No more can, food or clothes drives.

So what happened? Why has society changed so much? We always had a scrooge or two, but most people were more than willing to help others. Not so today. The mantra is let government do it. Perhaps the government took the responsibility away from the people to take care of others, away from family and the local community and made a government program out of it. So perhaps why is answered is taking care of other is no longer required, wanted, needed, there is always the government to do that. All we have to do as human beings is pay our taxes, sit back, relax and let the world go by.

But where I lived, there was a time when scrooge would only be seen around Christmas Time and that was on TV.
 
Wiseone said:
Uh people would die, and go hungry, and uneducated, and a lot of things that would make society worse for everyone.

Also the Constitution has changed a lot since Madison's day, just so you know. And if you think it makes sense to live your live based on political writings over 200 years old you're crazier than I thought, they make good reading, interesting points, and sometimes even useful insight but its hardly iron clad law.
Click to expand...

people didn't drop die, for 150 years before the government got involved in people life's.

was their mass hunger before government got into people life's...no

so the federal government is the only one who can give us education......i was educated before the creation of the dept. education.....education is a state power, not federal.

how has the constitution changed, has the government be given new powers, by it.......no

more restrictions have been placed on government, as opposed to granting new powers.

so it goes to prove a point, you not interested in the constitution, but whatever serves your wants and desires.
 
ernst barkmann said:
people didn't drop die, for 150 years before the government got involved in people life's.

was their mass hunger before government got into people life's...no

so the federal government is the only one who can give us education......i was educated before the creation of the dept. education.....education is a state power, not federal.

how has the constitution changed, has the government be given new powers, by it.......no

more restrictions have been placed on government, as opposed to granting new powers.

so it goes to prove a point, you not interested in the constitution, but whatever serves your wants and desires.
Click to expand...

Well if you think it took "150 years" for the government to get involved in people's lives your ignorant of history, and yes people did starve in this country prior to that but it was also a much different time where subsistence and just above subsistence farming was much more common place in this country, someone in a city can't exactly farm for their food.

I do respect the Constitution, just not your wacky version of it.
 
Wiseone said:
Well if you think it took "150 years" for the government to get involved in people's lives your ignorant of history, and yes people did starve in this country prior to that but it was also a much different time where subsistence and just above subsistence farming was much more common place in this country, someone in a city can't exactly farm for their food.

I do respect the Constitution, just not your wacky version of it.
Click to expand...

can you tell me how, the government was involved in the personal life's of the people from it beginning up to the expanding of government.

government did not even create a new dept, until 1849

there was no income tax, [accept during the civil war], which would have allowed government to expand.

so it i am ignorant of history... explain government's involvement in personal life's.
 
For a bunch of people who despise slavery, liberals sure don't mind being "owned" by Mother Government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you tell me how, the government was involved in the personal life's of the people from it beginning up to the expanding of government.

government did not even create a new dept, until 1849

there was no income tax, [accept during the civil war], which would have allowed government to expand.

so it i am ignorant of history... explain government's involvement in personal life's.
Click to expand...

Well there's the Whiskey Rebellion and the Militia Act for starters.

But getting back on topic of welfare recipients, do you think its wrong to pay someone like say a veteran who's been severely disabled in duty a monthly stipend in the form of welfare funded by your taxes? Do you feel its permissible to use tax dollars to fund schools thus providing children with a free education?

I mean what do you want exactly? To return to the government of the 1700s? You know thats impossible right? It cannot be done, that government was as much if not more of a result of the environment it had to act in as it was the result of idealism on the part of the founding fathers. That environment is gone now, it cannot be returned to.
 
Wiseone said:
Well there's the Whiskey Rebellion and the Militia Act for starters.

But getting back on topic of welfare recipients, do you think its wrong to pay someone like say a veteran who's been severely disabled in duty a monthly stipend in the form of welfare funded by your taxes? Do you feel its permissible to use tax dollars to fund schools thus providing children with a free education?

I mean what do you want exactly? To return to the government of the 1700s? You know thats impossible right? It cannot be done, that government was as much if not more of a result of the environment it had to act in as it was the result of idealism on the part of the founding fathers. That environment is gone now, it cannot be returned to.
Click to expand...

please state more then two simple things, give details how it involves government into the personal life's of people.

pay welfare to a vets, yes its unconstitutional,.... HOWEVER, the military is power of government and congress has the power to make all laws dealing with it....so if congress wanted to it, it would not be unlawful to pay vets money for being severely disabled via the military prospective of government..

education is a state power not a federal power--in may 1787 a proposal was made for the new federal government to be involved in the education of children, it was REJECTED by the constitutional convention, this in no way makes it lawful for government to be involved in education.

your last statement is clear, and i understand what you have said.--But i want to point out i want the government of the u.s. to last as the founders did, the founders when they created our government, looked at governments of the past, and why they all failed ......because they all cycled from good to bad, they always follow the same pattern.

the founders sought to break that pattern of good to bad, by creating a different government, called republican government, .................not a democratic, or monarchical government or a aristocratic government.

under republican government it is limited, and the government is not involve with the people, because if government is involved, but becomes tyrannical over the people in time, and the people become dependent on that government, rights are violated, and spending becomes uncontrollable.

well of coarse the very government the founders sought to avoid, by placing checks and balances in the constitution have been removed by the politicians, and people who want government to do for them.........yes america is not going back, [but we could try if we return to the founding principles of america] but america does not have a bright future, because it is following the same pattern of government of the past and will fail, and when it does you will have unrest and chaos, until a dictator comes to power which will be very quickly..people will not live with chaos/anarchy long.

"a republican form of government will not longer exist when the people forget what kind of government they have, it will turn into a democracy, followed by dictatorship"..........and then after the dictatorship, it cycles back to a ................new beginning and start over.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
please state more then two simple things, give details how it involves government into the personal life's of people.

pay welfare to a vets, yes its unconstitutional,.... HOWEVER, the military is power of government and congress has the power to make all laws dealing with it....so if congress wanted to it, it would not be unlawful to pay vets money for being severely disabled via the military prospective of government..

education is a state power not a federal power--in may 1787 a proposal was made for the new federal government to be involved in the education of children, it was REJECTED by the constitutional convention, this in no way makes it lawful for government to be involved in education.

your last statement is clear, and i understand what you have said.--But i want to point out i want the government of the u.s. to last as the founders did, the founders when they created our government, looked at governments of the past, and why they all failed ......because they all cycled from good to bad, they always follow the same pattern.

the founders sought to break that pattern of good to bad, by creating a different government, called republican government, .................not a democratic, or monarchical government or a aristocratic government.

under republican government it is limited, and the government is not involve with the people, because if government is involved, but becomes tyrannical over the people in time, and the people become dependent on that government, rights are violated, and spending becomes uncontrollable.

well of coarse the very government the founders sought to avoid, by placing checks and balances in the constitution have been removed by the politicians, and people who want government to do for them.........yes america is not going back, [but we could try if we return to the founding principles of america] but america does not have a bright future, because it is following the same pattern of government of the past and will fail, and when it does you will have unrest and chaos, until a dictator comes to power which will be very quickly..people will not live with chaos/anarchy long.

"a republican form of government will not longer exist when the people forget what kind of government they have, it will turn into a democracy, followed by dictatorship"..........and then after the dictatorship, it cycles back to a ................new beginning and start over.
Click to expand...

Why is it the most "passionate" believers of Christ are the ones trying to hoard as much wealth as possible?

Do you believe in minimum wage laws, that's a form of welfare is it not? Do you believe that market forces should dictate wages for laborers?
 
Wiseone said:
Why is it the most "passionate" believers of Christ are the ones trying to hoard as much wealth as possible?

Do you believe in minimum wage laws, that's a form of welfare is it not? Do you believe that market forces should dictate wages for laborers?
Click to expand...

why you bring Christ into this i will never know.

Jesus wanted people to give out of the goodness of their heart, he did not force anyone to give, as socialism does.

force by governments is what makes governments fail.

by having liberty people have the ability to do things, --------->you do not like...that is what freedom is.

free speech is speech you disagree with...if we all agreed on our speech ..no such right would be necessary.

people can hoard, just as they also can look at porn or be rude.

minimum wage ----unconstitutional...government has no authority to set wages,..that's contract between two people....commerce is the buying and selling of goods...not wages.

business owners are in charge of wages..that is their right,.........not a power of government
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
why you bring Christ into this i will never know.

Jesus wanted people to give out of the goodness of their heart, he did not force anyone to give, as socialism does.

force by governments is want makes governments fail.

by having liberty people have the ability to do things, --------->you do not like...that is what freedom is.

free speech is speech you disagree with...if we all agreed on our speech ..no such right would be necessary.

people can hoard, just as they also can look at porn or be rude.

minimum wage ----unconstitutional...government has no authority to set wages,..that's contract between two people....commerce is the buying and selling of goods...not wages.

business owners are in charge of wages..that is their right,.........not a power of government
Click to expand...

If you were true to your beliefs you wouldn't object so strongly to your tax dollars going to the needy if you were going to give those same dollars to the needy anyway, sure its slightly different, you lose some say in the matter, but its not entirely different from what you claim you were going to do anyway. Personally I think if you weren't required to pay taxes to support the needy you wouldn't give a single cent. Also it says in the Bible to pay your workers decent wages and not to hoard wealth, so again ya you can take a principled stance against minimum wage but if you really "believed" it would be something you'd be doing anyway of your own free will so it would hardly matter in the end.

Tell me why are you so keen on the government teaching and encouraging Biblical stories and information like teaching Noah's flood to be an actual event but you aren't in favor of the same government enforcing the parts about charity, decent wages, and avoiding hoarding wealth?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Every such economic manipulation on the part of government has winners and losers—those who are better off because of that act, and those who are worse.

To those on the wrong, those who wind up on the losing side of any such government interference are “greedy” for objecting to the cost imposed on them, to someone else's benefit. They like to paint it as the undeserving wealthy having to pay “their fair share” so that the poor can benefit. As one prominent wrongist put it on this forum…

​

The reality, of course, is that it isn't wealthy people having to settle for a lesser luxury car. It's the person who wants to work, and cannot find a job, who is “greedy” because he objects to the conditions that left him jobless and unable to support himself and his family, so that a McBurgerFlipper who still lives with his parents can make more than his limited skills are worth.

Ultimately, it's people who are inclined to be depending on government for their support, who benefit, at the expense of those who are more inclined to want to carry their own weight.

The wrong's concern for the poor is exactly as sincere as that which Judas expressed.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that you were born in the wrong country. Americans has never liked the wealthy class who care only for themselves and whine about paying taxes. Benjamin Franklin was thrifty but he still had this to say.
"All the Property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the publick, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the publick shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages."
It seems you would be more at home in Victorian England where you could become fodder for another Dickens novel.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
The wrong's concern for the poor is exactly as sincere as that which Judas expressed.
Click to expand...

Latter Day Saints? HA! What's next, that black skin is a curse from God, native Americans were white, Jesus visited North America, the continued direct link between God and the head of the Church, Adam is God, Baptism for the dead?
 
Wiseone said:
Why is it the most "passionate" believers of Christ are the ones trying to hoard as much wealth as possible?
Click to expand...

I see no evidence that this is so.

Why is it that those on the wrong think that an honest working-class citizen, just trying to earn an honest living, complaining about how difficult it makes it for him to support himself and his family because of the high taxes he has to pay to support unproductive parasites via welfare on top of his own legitimate responsibilities, is guilty of “hoarding wealth”?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom