Thought for today

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Aaron wrote:But the thing is Stephanie; the government didn't create these programs on their own free will. Every program you mentioned was not the result of government intervention but was fought for by unions; in many cases with the blood of the men doing the fighting and that is why we have 40 hour work weeks, safe work places and fair wage labor laws.

Contrary to what you say, the government lifted no one out of poverty. That was done by unions and working men and women.

Even though I have no use for unions today, I do give them credit for what they accomplished back in the day.

Now if they would just learn their time has passed and wither away, we'd all be better off.

sodbuster wrote:"...... is wealth created when you take wealth from one group and give it to another, which is entitlement? Or, is wealth created when people can freely trade and create goods and services others may need or desire? then tell me which is the better system."

Well again you over-simplify, Cato.

Of course wealth is not directly created by helping the needy (most of whom are children and mothers).

Nor is wealth created by the gvt. providing police and fire services.

Or National Defense via our military.

Or education services.

Gvt. services in general are not provided for the purpose of creating wealth.

But your two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

The provision of gvt. services does not preclude free trade and the creation of goods and services.

It is a non-sequitur that government services and wealth creation cannot be done simultaneously.

In fact, it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to create wealth if we did not have gvt. services.

Likewise with that tired old phrase "Government should be run like a business."

Government is not a business and should not be run like one.

The goal of business is to turn a profit.

The role of gvt. is to provide a public service.

Cato wrote:

sodbuster wrote:"...... is wealth created when you take wealth from one group and give it to another, which is entitlement? Or, is wealth created when people can freely trade and create goods and services others may need or desire? then tell me which is the better system."

Well again you over-simplify, Cato.

Of course wealth is not directly created by helping the needy (most of whom are children and mothers).

Nor is wealth created by the gvt. providing police and fire services.

Or National Defense via our military.

Or education services.

Gvt. services in general are not provided for the purpose of creating wealth.

But your two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

The provision of gvt. services does not preclude free trade and the creation of goods and services.

It is a non-sequitur that government services and wealth creation cannot be done simultaneously.

In fact, it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to create wealth if we did not have gvt. services.

Likewise with that tired old phrase "Government should be run like a business."

Government is not a business and should not be run like one.

The goal of business is to turn a profit.

The role of gvt. is to provide a public service.

As usual you used alot of words and said absolutely nothing. Try answer the question as posed. I'm really interesting in how the government creates wealth by taking money from one group and giving it to another and which is the better of the systems.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

So Cato, many Americans were impoverished in the 19th century, too- many more so than today- as a percentage. That was in the days before government assistance as we know it today. What has changed- why are Americans overall less impoverished in the 21st century than in the 19th and early 20th century?

Because as time went along more wealth was created. as more welath was created more oppertunity was available and the cycle repeated itself.

And almost all of that wealth has been created since the government "welfare" programs of the 1930s and later were enacted. So that would indicate that "entitlement" programs are not holding back the creation of more wealth. It is reasonable to assert that where people are better fed, better housed, better clothed, have better health care and are better educated than abject 19th century poverty allowed, that all the people thereof are part of an overall wealthier and healthier society.

Answer me this Ziggy, is wealth created when you take wealth from one group and give it to another, which is entitlement?

Or, is wealth created when people can freely trade and create goods and services others may need or desire?

then tell me which is the better system

Aaron wrote:Income redistribution is not a red herring, it's theft, plain and simple.

sodbuster wrote:Well when you start advocating the violent overthrow of our government color me gone.

ziggy wrote: I think that both are equally needed to (a) generate wealth, and (2) to ease the stress and burdens of poverty that seem endemic to virtually all economic systems.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

sodbuster wrote:"...... is wealth created when you take wealth from one group and give it to another, which is entitlement? Or, is wealth created when people can freely trade and create goods and services others may need or desire? then tell me which is the better system."

Well again you over-simplify, Cato.

Of course wealth is not directly created by helping the needy (most of whom are children and mothers).

Nor is wealth created by the gvt. providing police and fire services.

Or National Defense via our military.

Or education services.

Gvt. services in general are not provided for the purpose of creating wealth.

But your two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

The provision of gvt. services does not preclude free trade and the creation of goods and services.

It is a non-sequitur that government services and wealth creation cannot be done simultaneously.

In fact, it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to create wealth if we did not have gvt. services.

Likewise with that tired old phrase "Government should be run like a business."

Government is not a business and should not be run like one.

The goal of business is to turn a profit.

The role of gvt. is to provide a public service.

As usual you used alot of words and said absolutely nothing. Try answer the question as posed. I'm really interesting in how the government creates wealth by taking money from one group and giving it to another and which is the better of the systems.

He did answer your question, Cato.

He said, "Of course wealth is not directly created by helping the needy (most of whom are children and mothers)".

He went on to explain that it is not the purpose of government to create wealth- but to provide services.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: I think that both are equally needed to (a) generate wealth, and (2) to ease the stress and burdens of poverty that seem endemic to virtually all economic systems.

OK I then have another question for you. As you may have now noticed, it is morally repugnant to me for the government to take the fruit of my labor to give to another. Why should I be forced to support policy to which I disagree?

What raise this question that you go to great lengths to tell us that you do not support anything religious in the school system or any other government facility or agency mand you support any act the limits or removes religious sysbols, celebrations, even going as far as to suggest the limitation of free speach when it comes to religion,

You go so far as to demand that the government not force you to support policy to which you disagree. Why is it alright for you then to demand the government take the fruit of my labor in support of policy to which I disagree.

Aaron wrote:Do you think our government can eliminate poverty Ziggy?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: I think that both are equally needed to (a) generate wealth, and (2) to ease the stress and burdens of poverty that seem endemic to virtually all economic systems.

OK I then have another question for you. As you may have now noticed, it is morally repugnant to me for the government to take the fruit of my labor to give to another. Why should I be forced to support policy to which I disagree?

Because that is the way it is in a republic. Nothing guarantees that you or I will be allowed to exempt ourselves from policy with which we disagree- whether trade policy, whether military policy, whether diplomatic policy, whether domestic social policy, whether economic policy, whether human rights policy, etc. Nothing allows us to exempt ourselves from the general laws- even when we disagree with the policy those laws establish. But expressing our disagreement with government policies we do not like is a right the Constitution recognizes. So grumble all you care to.

What raise this question that you go to great lengths to tell us that you do not support anything religious in the school system or any other government facility or agency mand you support any act the limits or removes religious sysbols, celebrations, even going as far as to suggest the limitation of free speach when it comes to religion,

What is and is not allowed in schools and other government institutions is not because of what Ziggy does or does not support. It comes about because of what the Constitution says, and because of more than two hundred years of case law based on citizens exercising their right to challenge their government.

I agree with some of it, and I disagree with some of it. But I am not so arrogant as to presume that just because I disagree with some of it that it ought not apply to me.

You go so far as to demand that the government not force you to support policy to which you disagree. Why is it alright for you then to demand the government take the fruit of my labor in support of policy to which I disagree.

You throw the word "demand" around a lot, don't you? Over 63 years of life, and 42 years of marriage, I have learned that demands rarely if ever result in a desired outcome. So you don't know what you are talking about, Cato. I express my opinion on a wide variety of matters, yes. But I do not make demands- not on anyone. If expressing my opinion and voting for or against political candidates constitute making demands, then, well, I respectfully suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "demand" in any dictionary.

Redistribution of income comes about, not because Ziggy demands anything, but because Congress and state legislatures vote for programs that result in the redistribution of income.

We live in a republic. Get use to it.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Do you think our government can eliminate poverty Ziggy?

Eliminate it? No.

Virtually by definition, poverty is an inevitable part of any economic system.

But as I said earlier, and as Stephanie suggested, government can ease the stress and burdens of poverty that seem endemic to virtually all economic systems.

Cato wrote:Actually we live in a Constitutional Republic. Anyways, so now ziggy really has little to do with the way things are. That's kind of a copout don't you think. That's fine, but that didn't answer the questions I posed. I asked what you thought. I know how things are today, even though I disagree with you regarding that you have little control.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Do you think our government can eliminate poverty Ziggy?

Eliminate it? No.

Virtually by definition, poverty is an inevitable part of any economic system.

But as I said earlier, and as Stephanie suggested, government can ease the stress and burdens of poverty that seem endemic to virtually all economic systems.

But our government is not doing that. They are placing more restrictive burdens on the poorest of the poor and ensuring they stay there, often times for generations, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Hell, you refuse to discuss it.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: I think that both are equally needed to (a) generate wealth, and (2) to ease the stress and burdens of poverty that seem endemic to virtually all economic systems.

OK I then have another question for you. As you may have now noticed, it is morally repugnant to me for the government to take the fruit of my labor to give to another. Why should I be forced to support policy to which I disagree?

Because that is the way it is in a republic. Nothing guarantees that you or I will be allowed to exempt ourselves from policy with which we disagree- whether trade policy, whether military policy, whether diplomatic policy, whether domestic social policy, whether economic policy, whether human rights policy, etc. Nothing allows us to exempt ourselves from the general laws- even when we disagree with the policy those laws establish. But expressing our disagreement with government policies we do not like is a right the Constitution recognizes. So grumble all you care to.

What raise this question that you go to great lengths to tell us that you do not support anything religious in the school system or any other government facility or agency mand you support any act the limits or removes religious sysbols, celebrations, even going as far as to suggest the limitation of free speach when it comes to religion,

What is and is not allowed in schools and other government institutions is not because of what Ziggy does or does not support. It comes about because of what the Constitution says, and because of more than two hundred years of case law based on citizens exercising their right to challenge their government.

I agree with some of it, and I disagree with some of it. But I am not so arrogant as to presume that just because I disagree with some of it that it ought not apply to me.

You go so far as to demand that the government not force you to support policy to which you disagree. Why is it alright for you then to demand the government take the fruit of my labor in support of policy to which I disagree.

You throw the word "demand" around a lot, don't you? Over 63 years of life, and 42 years of marriage, I have learned that demands rarely if ever result in a desired outcome. So you don't know what you are talking about, Cato. I express my opinion on a wide variety of matters, yes. But I do not make demands- not on anyone. If expressing my opinion and voting for or against political candidates constitute making demands, then, well, I respectfully suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "demand" in any dictionary.

Redistribution of income comes about, not because Ziggy demands anything, but because Congress and state legislatures vote for programs that result in the redistribution of income.

We live in a republic. Get use to it.

Actually we live in a Constitutional Republic. Anyways, so now ziggy really has little to do with the way things are. That's kind of a copout don't you think. That's fine, but that didn't answer the questions I posed. I asked what you thought. I know how things are today, even though I disagree with you regarding that you have little control.

ziggy wrote:

Or do you think that no one should be forced to support government policy with which they disagree?

Aaron wrote:What exactly did the government of the 19th century do to ease the burdens of poverty on it's citizens?