Kreutz wrote:yes, shelter, food, and medical care would certainly "promote the general welfare". Omitted that one word.
No, the general welfare clause (which is really the power to tax and spend which the preamble summarizes as such), was very narrowly interpreted until the 20th century.
The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
Madison's view was the dominate view and was upheld by the courts until 1936. It's absurd to suggest that a general preamble statement summarizing the governments power to tax and spend grants it powers to tax and spend which exceed its enumerated powers...particularly since the 10ths ratification should have further nixed any such interpretation.
Kreutz wrote:Funny how successful people usually define it exactly the opposite. They usually talk about their troubles and the pressure as motivation to do better and as improving their character. Funny how some of the most useless people were those who grew up wanting nothing, eh?
My gross income in 2010 was $189,891;
IIRC, you work for yourself so that amount technically includes your benefits right as an employer would pay medical/401k/etc. on top of normal wages? Unless you get benefits above and beyond that from an employer, around NOVA that's just a bit above average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-in ... ted_States
The top three are right around the government and range $100-$110k, but benefits packages often add $50k+ in actual value and substantially more since those aren't taxed. That was in 2008 and seems to be an annual growth rate of $3-4k, so the average for 2010 (including benefits for a more fair comparison) is probably closer to $170k.
Don't forget that that is the average! It puts you in the upper middle class and doing well for sure, but I'd hardly call that rich around here. Compared to the rest of the country it is a lot, but then again their cost of living is much less.
I don't think you will be getting any interviews from the WSJ or can quit working anytime soon.
Kreutz wrote:I barely graduated high school and went to college on the GI Bill and financial aid, if not for the help i got I could never have afforded college and would not be as successful as I am today. Its only fair I want others to get the opportunities I did.
The GI bill is a benefit of employment which really isn't any different from a company providing health care or a car or a retirement package. Others have the opportunities, no one is standing in their way to do what they wish (expect the socialists of course). If they want to join the military and serve they will too have the ability to use the GI bill. That's a far cry from free food, health care, and a house. It's just the government fulfilling their employment contract just like a company who also has a education package must (most do around here).
Opportunity doesn't mean free or without sacrifice to accomplish. When you legislate what I can and can not do you are restricting my liberty and opportunities, not promoting them.
Kreutz wrote:I'd take freedom everyday of the week including Sunday. Only slaves have food and shelter not of their doing, but lack liberty. Franklin was right:
I'm guessing you've never gone to sleep hungry? For weeks at a time? It sucks and theres nothing ennobling about it.
I make a lot now, but growing up there were times we qualified for government programs. My dad worked hard and pulled himself up and made a better life for us. I hope to do the same. WTF does this have to do with anything? I didn't begrudge those with more than I had then, I don't now and I'd definitely rather be poor and free than a slave and wealthy.
Kreutz wrote:incidentally, we are all "slaves" to our physical needs
Yes, but that is a fact of nature. We each work against it and depending on how hard we work and what decisions we make determines how well we do.
Kreutz wrote:and in a wider sense slaves to our societies. Freedom is illusory unless you're a hunter gatherer living alone. Otherwise you live in a society which by its very nature disallows freedom.
You apparently don't understand the concept of this country. The people who came here from Europe did so to flee such slavery (it took many forms). They did choose freedom over comforts. Over and over again we made that choice. It's amazing how fast we subdued most of the continent after throwing off the British yoke, but it certainly wasn't because we expected an easy life where everything was provided to us. No, we went despite the hardships.
You also apparently don't understand freedom and rights since you are equating it with anarchy. Our government was only to secure our rights from those who would take them by force and to provide an third party arbitrator when disputes arose. We created a national defense to secure them from outsiders, we have LE/justice system to secure them from each other, and we have the Bill of Rights to put the government on notice it can not legally violate them either.
Liberty and ethics are not separate concepts, per se. Liberty is not doing whatever you want with no consequences; in fact even nature teaches us this for we can not meet our natural needs without proper effort. Liberty is freedom of action and reaping the consequences of that action, for better or worse. The restrictions our society originally put on liberty were simply restrictions to avoid one persons liberty from violating another.
The right to life is just a specific expression of that liberty and yes, we put consequences on actions which unjustly deny that right to others. I say unjustly because things like SD carry no such negative consequences (or at least shouldn't in a free society) because SD is just defending ones right to life against another who wishes to take it. Theft is restricted because it denies the liberty of your property, etc.
Yes, societies restrict actions to some extend or at least provide consequences for those actions. However, liberty is freedom of action so long as your actions aren't denying that same freedom to others. A free society is not anarchy. That's hardly an illusion.
[quote="Kreutz"
It isn't an improvement, it is an attack on the very ideals which made this country what it is.
What "ideals" save profit? This country was founded on
one ideal; making money. It began as a chartered investment corporation. To this day America is basically a gigantic shopping mall whose sole credo is CONSUME.
If you consider that great, so be it.[/quote]
No, those are not the ideals (as I explained a bit above). You have freedom of action so long as you are not taking actions which deny that freedom to another, and you make good choices, you will reap the benefits of those choices. If that profits you, then so be it. Profit is far more than money. I've certainly profited from actions which made me no money...in fact sometimes I profited from actions which lost me money, but I gained knowledge and experience which was far more valuable (to me) than the money.
Consumption is what the government wants to replace the ideals which founded this country with. Its a distraction to the encroaching slavery. Isn't that exactly what you want? We'll trade you a house (consumption) in exchange for your liberty? We'll give you free stuff if you just give up a bit more freedom?
All you socialists are offering is consumption in exchange for liberty...after all it is better to be fed and a slave than hungry and free, right?
