All those against federal entitlement programs say "I"

[WillypHD]

I am against federal entitlement programs for these reasons;

1. They encourage lazyness and dependence on the government.
2. Our federal government was not made to provide anything but what is needed to preserve liberty and freedom.
3. Entitlement programs redistribute wealth which is morally wrong.

What say you?

 

[David]

I am against federal entitlement programs for these reasons;

1. They encourage lazyness and dependence on the government.
2. Our federal government was not made to provide anything but what is needed to preserve liberty and freedom.
3. Entitlement programs redistribute wealth which is morally wrong.

What say you?

Well then I guess you don't support the police/fire departments, military, social services, unemployment, and just about everything else that keeps the US, most of which is underdeveloped and poor, from being a 3rd World hellhole.

Stop with the "I have mine so screw you," cop-outs and realize that some people legitimately need help.

And yes, redistributing wealth from the producers to the already wealthy manipulators of money is morally wrong, to bad people like you keep the status quo going.

 

[WillypHD]

Okay first off I never said that I did not support the police/fire departments or the military, those programs directly protect liberty and freedom in the country. As far as federal funded social services, no i do not support them.

Secondly, I also never said "I have mine so screw you". I do recognize that some people need help, and I will help those people, it is called charity.

Third and finally, who are these evil "manipulators of money"? Do you feel that if person a is a millionare that he should have to give more so that person b who is worse off can have more?

 

[David]

Okay first off I never said that I did not support the police/fire departments or the military, those programs directly protect liberty and freedom in the country. As far as federal funded social services, no i do not support them.

Secondly, I also never said "I have mine so screw you". I do recognize that some people need help, and I will help those people, it is called charity.

Third and finally, who are these evil "manipulators of money"? Do you feel that if person a is a millionare that he should have to give more so that person b who is worse off can have more?

So you support a massive and underfunded program that can provide the needed service at less then 1/2 it's current budget, support redistributing wealth to the rich who've never 'worked' a day in their lives and oppose gov't helping the needy in favor of inadequate charities, many of which have proven to be scams. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[WillypHD]

I believe I am not being clear enough in my opinions, so I will try once more.

I believe in the smallest federal government possible, with only programs nessasary to preserving liberty. These include; Military, Judiciary, patent and copyright protection and international relations. Everything else should be left to the states to do for themselves.

Charity in my eyes is when I decide to give on my own accord, not having the government decide for me who my money should go to. Expecially not the federal government.

 

[David]

I believe I am not being clear enough in my opinions, so I will try once more.

I believe in the smallest federal government possible, with only programs nessasary to preserving liberty. These include; Military, Judiciary, patent and copyright protection and international relations. Everything else should be left to the states to do for themselves.

Charity in my eyes is when I decide to give on my own accord, not having the government decide for me who my money should go to. Expecially not the federal government.

Providing the general welfare is 1 of the Feds Constitutional roles. You're demanding the gov't get so small it can't function as designed.

 

[WillypHD]

Please explain what exactly you mean by the "general welfare".

The government had no problem fuctioning before it started all of the entitlement programs, why do you believe it cannot now?

If the people really want their government to provide other things, it should be the state government that provides it. If the state were to provide the welfare programs it would run much better, the state knows what its people need better than the federal government, states cannot run a deficit so any programs created would require specifically designated funds and if the people of that state want those programs they can pay for them, rather than taking the funds from the taxes of the rest of the country like we are doing now.

We need to stop giving the Federal government more and more power to regulate and micro-manage every crevice of the country. We need to strive to decentrilize our government so that power is where it belongs and things will run more smoothly.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I believe in the smallest federal government possible, with only programs nessasary to preserving liberty. These include; Military, Judiciary, patent and copyright protection and international relations. Everything else should be left to the states to do for themselves.

This position is a fairly libertarian, federalist and classicial liberal view with some modern conservatism thrown in to add a little pizazz to the mix.

It is a POV I find meaningful for many reasons.

Charity in my eyes is when I decide to give on my own accord, not having the government decide for me who my money should go to. Expecially not the federal government.

Well, that's because charity is you deciding to give of your own accord.

When the government takes your money through its taxing powers to spend as it sees fit it is not charity.

Somewhere there must be some one in this thread with a messed up notion of charity. I will investigate.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I have found the clueless party.............

Providing the general welfare is 1 of the Feds Constitutional roles. You're demanding the gov't get so small it can't function as designed.

And you don't understand the design

Who is overdrawn on their fund of knowledge?

Well then I guess you don't support the police/fire departments

Dude, you are becoming notoriously well know for not knowing what you are talking about.

The above are neither federal nor entitlements.

It is becoming very frustrating havinbg to explain the very basic facts of the discussion to you. Please, please, please..... before you post next time... have even an inkling of fact to support your comments.

military,

Is federally funded but is not an entitlement so much as a constitutional mandate.

Please, please, please..... before you post next time... have even an inkling of fact to support your comments.

social services, unemployment,

Social services is a very vague term with some elements from the federal government.

Unemployment... you must not work. Unemployment is paid for out of payroll taxes. If you've never worked you won't qualify... so, this is not an entitlement, it is a self funded insurance program.

Please, please, please..... before you post next time... have even an inkling of fact to support your comments.

and just about everything else that keeps the US, most of which is underdeveloped and poor, from being a 3rd World hellhole.

Stop with the "I have mine so screw you," cop-outs and realize that some people legitimately need help.

And yes, redistributing wealth from the producers to the already wealthy manipulators of money is morally wrong, to bad people like you keep the status quo going.

No. The problem here is not the OP.

The problem here is that you are so spectacularly unaware of the things you are speaking about that I find it truly amazing.

Please, please, please..... before you post next time... have even an inkling of fact to support your comments.

 

[WillypHD]

Very well said ObtuseObserver, thank you for your input in this debate.

 

[obtuseobserver]

He means well. He is energized and excited to debate these subjects. I respect that in him. He needs a bit more real world experience. As do many who argue from the left.

 

[WillypHD]

I, like Joosebox, just wish he would be more strait forward about his positions, rather than just being angry with conservatives.

 

[David]

Please explain what exactly you mean by the "general welfare".

The government had no problem fuctioning before it started all of the entitlement programs, why do you believe it cannot now?

If the people really want their government to provide other things, it should be the state government that provides it. If the state were to provide the welfare programs it would run much better, the state knows what its people need better than the federal government, states cannot run a deficit so any programs created would require specifically designated funds and if the people of that state want those programs they can pay for them, rather than taking the funds from the taxes of the rest of the country like we are doing now.

We need to stop giving the Federal government more and more power to regulate and micro-manage every crevice of the country. We need to strive to decentrilize our government so that power is where it belongs and things will run more smoothly.

You act like entitlements are a new thing. What about all the discounts to support slavery? What about the protectionism tariffs and subsidies to prop up American bossinesses? The only thing that's changed is that entitlements have been aimed more at people rather then businesses.

 

[WillypHD]

Do you mind being a bit more specific in your examples, I am unfamiliar with the discounts to support slavery, protectionism tariffs, and subsidies to propl up American businesses that you speak of.

In gerneral response to your question I do not support the federal government giving out things to people unless it is a constitutional must, if something needs to be done tempararily it may be debated, but we should never have mandatory funds going to paying for people to live.

I will try to read up on the examples you put forth and get back to you on my opinion in those specific matters.

 

[David]

Do you mind being a bit more specific in your examples, I am unfamiliar with the discounts to support slavery, protectionism tariffs, and subsidies to propl up American businesses that you speak of.

In gerneral response to your question I do not support the federal government giving out things to people unless it is a constitutional must, if something needs to be done tempararily it may be debated, but we should never have mandatory funds going to paying for people to live.

I will try to read up on the examples you put forth and get back to you on my opinion in those specific matters.

Things like public education are Constitutional and fall under 'General Welfare'. You're a fool if you think having the states run independent and possibly opposing public education systems (assuming they do) would result in anything but a mess. And if you oppose PE, I have to ask why do you hate the middle class so much?

 

[WillypHD]

Does it say in the constitution "public education" or are you assuming that by general welfare they meant it? I do support public education, but it should be run by and funded by the state, it would be much easier to tweak and fine tune the education system to each states individual needs if it were state run, and the people of that state could decide for themselves, and if they do not like that state's education they would have the option of moving to a state who's education system they prefered.

Why do you feel that states are incapable of running themselves?

Also, I noticed that by saying the education system was state run and funded it would be a mess, you made the assuption that it is not a mess already.

 

[David]

Does it say in the constitution "public education" or are you assuming that by general welfare they meant it? I do support public education, but it should be run by and funded by the state, it would be much easier to tweak and fine tune the education system to each states individual needs if it were state run, and the people of that state could decide for themselves, and if they do not like that state's education they would have the option of moving to a state who's education system they prefered.

Why do you feel that states are incapable of running themselves?

Also, I noticed that by saying the education system was state run and funded it would be a mess, you made the assuption that it is not a mess already.

Can you imagine the situation of some states having no public education (and a weak middle class as a result), some states having partially funded public education (resulting in poor, underfunded schools that, despite being public, change tuition) and some states having public education and no states having a unified curriculum making interstate moves a pain for students?

The states should have more power, I'm all for states rights. That said the Fed exists for a reason and that is to provide a central authority. It's too strong atm but demanding it gives up all it's power defeats it's purpose.

 

[WillypHD]

Can you imagine the situation of some states having no public education (and a weak middle class as a result), some states having partially funded public education (resulting in poor, underfunded schools that, despite being public, change tuition) and some states having public education and no states having a unified curriculum making interstate moves a pain for students?

The states should have more power, I'm all for states rights. That said the Fed exists for a reason and that is to provide a central authority. It's too strong atm but demanding it gives up all it's power defeats it's purpose.

Why do you think education would be so horrible if it were state run and funded?
You do not think state citizens would want to fund their state education and make it strong and successful?
As for uniformity, it would be too easy for state educators to coorodinate amongst the other state educators and devise a nationwide accepted standard aptitude test for high school seniors to take in preperation for college.
Lastly, I would not dream of taking away all of the federal government's duties, but in this instance I believe the responsibility would more effectively and efficiently be handled by the states.

 

[WillypHD]

Did some snooping around and just to clear the record, the constitution says it will "promote the general welfare" it does not say that it will provide it, which is what the federal government currently does for many Americans.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Its a vague clause empowering congress to spend money without specifically tell them what to spend it on

but, constructionists believe it is limited to those duties mandated in the constitution rather than entitlements