Why do liberals think government should pay for....

[This_person]

I don't really care what it is, but it is always a need for government involvement.

Now, I'm a SMALL government person, not a NO government person. Do we need a military? "provide for the common defense...of the United States." That's right there in Article One, Section 8. we can talk about a standing army (Article One, Section 8 also says "The Congress shall have the power 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;") which is clearly not intended to be a federal thing, but still we have to be able to defend ourselves. Do we need a State Dept? Well, it is Article 2 Section 2 that talks about the president appointing ambassadors, so a uniform voice from the USA to those ambassadors seems reasonable.

What about Dept of Education? Where is the constitutional authority? Any change to their funding and liberals will tell you about how conservatives are trying to rob an education from kids - but, really, the states should do that. I find no authorization for a Dept of Education.

What about a Dept of Housing and Urban Development? I mean, seriously, where is there even a hint of this in the constitution? Again, change the amount and liberals will tell you how conservatives want to put people out on the streets. Why can't we turn all of it over to the states in which these places exist, and close down this dept too?


Liberal will always tell you about how someone may or may not be affected by a reduction in funding to some program, but they always - always - forget that there is no constitutional authority for any of it. Why do they think the federal government should take care of so many things, when those things almost exclusively belong to the state, or to people themselves?





Yes, I know a common answer from conservatives will be "because they pay for votes". True or not, they must think there's something reasonable about doing even that. What is it, liberals?

 

[PsyOps]

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

This is misconstrued (or maybe I ought to say distorted) as it's the government's job to provide our well-being, our needs... when that wasn't the intent of that clause at all. And one of the biggest things that became a detriment to this is public education. Through decades of our public education system, we have been brainwashed into believing this false interpretation is true; that it is government's responsibility to provide our needs. And as each generation gets pumped out of our education system, the demands for more government grows. That's why there is no turning back. Once you start something, once you start giving something away to people, there is no taking it back.

 

[Grumpy]

Once you start something, once you start giving something away to people, there is no taking it back.

The whole key to Obamacare, pass it, get it on the books no matter how bad it is.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Because they are so unlikeable they don't think anyone would help them out.

 

[transporter]

The whole key to Obamacare, pass it, get it on the books no matter how bad it is.

Not that your post has anything to do with the OP....but I wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the plan the GOP tried when they attempted to repeal Obamacare

I also wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the methodology the GOP is using on this unwise tax cut plan. (If you ACTUALLY give a rat's ass about the deficit/debt, then you should probably pay attention to what this bill will do.)

 

[vraiblonde]

What about Dept of Education?

What about a Dept of Housing and Urban Development?

Support the general welfare. In this country, we feel obligated to provide education and safe housing for all our citizens, including those who cannot pay for it themselves. I am completely okay with my tax dollars helping my fellow Americans. The problem comes when these basic rights get politicized and become indoctrination programs, and it all goes to hell.

 

[This_person]

Not that your post has anything to do with the OP....but I wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the plan the GOP tried when they attempted to repeal Obamacare

I also wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the methodology the GOP is using on this unwise tax cut plan. (If you ACTUALLY give a rat's ass about the deficit/debt, then you should probably pay attention to what this bill will do.)

He actually answered the question I was asking of people like you. You didn't.

 

[This_person]

Support the general welfare. In this country, we feel obligated to provide education and safe housing for all our citizens, including those who cannot pay for it themselves. I am completely okay with my tax dollars helping my fellow Americans. The problem comes when these basic rights get politicized and become indoctrination programs, and it all goes to hell.

You and Psy I think hit the nail on the head. People seem to be unable to finish the phrase with "...of the United States." As in, the general welfare of the government, like buying buildings and paying employees and conducting research in the useful arts, etc.

They pervert the words .

 

[PsyOps]

I also wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the methodology the GOP is using on this unwise tax cut plan.

What's good for the goose... sucks to be in the minority doesn't it?

 

[PsyOps]

They pervert the words .

We allow them to pervert it.

 

[This_person]

We allow them to pervert it.

Absolutely!

 

[Hijinx]

Not that your post has anything to do with the OP....but I wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the plan the GOP tried when they attempted to repeal Obamacare

I also wonder if you have noticed that is exactly the methodology the GOP is using on this unwise tax cut plan. (If you ACTUALLY give a rat's ass about the deficit/debt, then you should probably pay attention to what this bill will do.)

I don't know how the Republicans can build up the national debt any faster than Obama did if they cut taxes.
Can you explain that to me?
I mean Obama did a helluva job of raising the debt, but I just haven't read anywhere in these forums where you objected to it.

 

[GURPS]

I am completely okay with my tax dollars helping my fellow Americans.

at a LOCAL Level ... not from DC many miles away


but respond to the OP - twisting of the Commerce Clause has long been the Democratic Justification for all things Gov. Intervention


Education, Welfare, SSI, EPA, BATF

 

[PsyOps]

I don't know how the Republicans can build up the national debt any faster than Obama did if they cut taxes.
Can you explain that to me?
I mean Obama did a helluva job of raising the debt, but I just haven't read anywhere in these forums where you objected to it.

As I always say, liberals believe they do things for the greater good, therefore amassing massive debt, even with higher taxes, is justified. They didn't give a damn about the debt under Obama; now they're suddenly concerned about it.

 

[Kyle]

As I always say, liberals believe they do things for the greater good, therefore amassing massive debt, even with higher taxes, is justified. They didn't give a damn about the debt under Obama; now they're suddenly concerned about it.

Strange. I don't see them amassing huge amounts of personal credit card and loan debt for any of these "goods" they seem to be concerned.

 

[vraiblonde]

at a LOCAL Level ... not from DC many miles away

I'm okay with fed bucks going to states and communities - I'll kick in for Houston and south Florida, help them get back together. What I'm not okay with is hemorrhaging our money at foreign countries, especially those ruled by a dictator, or worse, an outright enemy of the US.

 

[PsyOps]

I am completely okay with my tax dollars helping my fellow Americans.

But have these programs really helped: on a general level? I mean if welfare was meant to help people, the number of recipients should go down, not up.

 

[Kyle]

But have these programs really helped: on a general level? I mean if welfare was meant to help people, the number of recipients should go down, not up.

Government 101.

Anything the government pays for you get more of!

Johnson was honest about the intention. Welfare was nothing more than a vote buying scheme at taxpayer expense.

 

[vraiblonde]

But have these programs really helped: on a general level? I mean if welfare was meant to help people, the number of recipients should go down, not up.

Well, they definitely need to have more oversight, but I'm okay with my tax bucks helping out people who've had a misfortune or need a little help getting started. The recipients wouldn't necessarily go down - one recipient goes off the dole, another one takes their place. For those able to work, there does need to be a cutoff date.

 

[PsyOps]

Well, they definitely need to have more oversight, but I'm okay with my tax bucks helping out people who've had a misfortune or need a little help getting started. The recipients wouldn't necessarily go down - one recipient goes off the dole, another one takes their place. For those able to work, there does need to be a cutoff date.

I'm kind of mixed about that. If you choose to live in an area where you know natural disasters are common, why should that be on us? If they refuse to evacuate when told to, why should anyone risk their lives trying to rescue them? There was a time in this country where people were hit by disaster and they only had themselves or neighbors to help. There was nothing in government to help them. Not only did this country survive through these things, but we thrived. Now, I believe we are on the decline. And I think it's largely because of our demand that government fix all of our problems.