How is the government different from a common thief?

[Riprorin]

Assistance should be provided by churches, civic organizations, charitable groups or philanthropic individuals to get people on thier feet so they can provide for themselves.

This shouldn't be the role of government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Quote me where I said it should be.
I think welfare is okay at times -- if someone loses his/her job and needs unemployment for a few weeks, cool...but I have a problem with people living off the government.

Unemployment has nothing to do with welfare or anything like that. It's a form of insurance that you and your employer pay premiums to while you are employed. After you lose your job, you file a claim, just like insurance, and if it is accepted, you get the checks for a limited time (usually one year) while looking for new work.

 

[Soybomb]

First the government isn't robbing you, they make laws representative of the public's desire. The country has decided you need to pay taxes, not just senators. Taxes are now for the good of the society. You can't choose to drive 150mph on the streets and you can't choose not to pay your taxes because citizens want it to be that way.

Similarly at the time it would seem that welfare and social security exist because the majority want them to. If you decided never to drive again you couldn't demand we stop using tax money on roads, nor if you were a pacifist could you demand we quit military spending.

If you're not happy with where you're tax dollar is going make it known through voting appropriately

 

[MainFramed]

Originally posted by: Magnum375
" I love my country but fear my government "

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Quote me where I said it should be.
I think welfare is okay at times -- if someone loses his/her job and needs unemployment for a few weeks, cool...but I have a problem with people living off the government.

Unemployment has nothing to do with welfare or anything like that. It's a form of insurance that you and your employer pay premiums to while you are employed. After you lose your job, you file a claim, just like insurance, and if it is accepted, you get the checks for a limited time (usually one year) while looking for new work.

and people are forced into this insurance that they might not choose to have

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
First the government isn't robbing you, they make laws representative of the public's desire. The country has decided you need to pay taxes, not just senators. Taxes are now for the good of the society. You can't choose to drive 150mph on the streets and you can't choose not to pay your taxes because citizens want it to be that way.

the country is led around by the nose by the political elite.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Quote me where I said it should be.
I think welfare is okay at times -- if someone loses his/her job and needs unemployment for a few weeks, cool...but I have a problem with people living off the government.

Unemployment has nothing to do with welfare or anything like that. It's a form of insurance that you and your employer pay premiums to while you are employed. After you lose your job, you file a claim, just like insurance, and if it is accepted, you get the checks for a limited time (usually one year) while looking for new work.

and people are forced into this insurance that they might not choose to have

I can't disagree with you there. Unfortunately, we have to blame the power of human stupidity on this one. Given a choice, most people would choose to opt out of employment insurance, but then they would whine and cry like little girls after they got laid off. What the hell can we do? Even though I have never used it once in my whole life, I see employment insurance as a good thing. Hell, my house is insured and I've never had a fire either. Yet, believe it or not, a large number of people would go without fire insurance if they didn't have a mortgage lender forcing them to have it.
My point was that employment insurance is not similar to welfare, and shouldn't be included in this conversation.

 

[Riprorin]

Agreed.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Can't just say its a liberal policy.. Check out how many subsidies go to corporations who contribute to the republicans.. For example check out the recent farm bill. Not even the farmers wanted the damn thing but the politicians passed it to keep the support of huge companies like ADM..

Exactly, and look at the Democrats' political campaign contributions, they only come from little old ladies and poor people and disabled people in wheelchairs.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Can't just say its a liberal policy.. Check out how many subsidies go to corporations who contribute to the republicans.. For example check out the recent farm bill. Not even the farmers wanted the damn thing but the politicians passed it to keep the support of huge companies like ADM..

Exactly, and look at the Democrats' political campaign contributions, they only come from little old ladies and poor people and disabled people in wheelchairs.

Hahaha. Not!

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
First the government isn't robbing you, they make laws representative of the public's desire. The country has decided you need to pay taxes, not just senators. Taxes are now for the good of the society. You can't choose to drive 150mph on the streets and you can't choose not to pay your taxes because citizens want it to be that way.

Similarly at the time it would seem that welfare and social security exist because the majority want them to. If you decided never to drive again you couldn't demand we stop using tax money on roads, nor if you were a pacifist could you demand we quit military spending.

If you're not happy with where you're tax dollar is going make it known through voting appropriately

That's misrepresenting things and you know it. When have you seen a bill on the ballot asking for more money for welfare? Government doesn't play that way. They cut the things that are actually important first. Schools, police force, etc. and then say "look, we're out of money. vote to give us more". People don't vote to give the government money for welfare or garbage like that. The vote for increases for things that are important. I suppose you could look at it as a form of extortion.

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: Vic
For once, I agree with Riprorin. The purpose of government should be, in some fashion, to protect the poor from being exploited by the rich however, it should never be involved in forcible wealth redistribtion. That sort of thing harms us all.

I agree and firmly support this stance:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Soybomb
First the government isn't robbing you, they make laws representative of the public's desire. The country has decided you need to pay taxes, not just senators. Taxes are now for the good of the society. You can't choose to drive 150mph on the streets and you can't choose not to pay your taxes because citizens want it to be that way.

Similarly at the time it would seem that welfare and social security exist because the majority want them to. If you decided never to drive again you couldn't demand we stop using tax money on roads, nor if you were a pacifist could you demand we quit military spending.

If you're not happy with where you're tax dollar is going make it known through voting appropriately

That's misrepresenting things and you know it. When have you seen a bill on the ballot asking for more money for welfare? Government doesn't play that way. They cut the things that are actually important first. Schools, police force, etc. and then say "look, we're out of money. vote to give us more". People don't vote to give the government money for welfare or garbage like that. The vote for increases for things that are important. I suppose you could look at it as a form of extortion.

That's not a misrepresentation of things. Welfare has never been on the ballot, and neither has any other single issue because our governement doesn't work by having referendums on everything. We elect people that represent our issues. If you have a problem with the current system, you elect a person that says they will end taxes and welfare, or whatever you feel is necessary. If you know that both the democrat and the republican candidate will cut important things, but leave things you don't like, then you vote for someone else who will make better decisions.

If people cared enough about ending welfare, then it could be gone. Either the majority want welfare, or they don't care enough about it for that issue to dictate where their vote goes. That's why it's not stealing, because the government isn't some separate entity taking things from you. The government is you taking things from yourself. The government isn't imposed on you, it's acting for you. If you believe fervently that it's wrong, then you should be working fervently to change it. You have to realize that you may not succeed, though. Part of your societal contract is that in exchange for what you get from this country, you agree that the will as expressed by the people in the government, is also your will.

If you find the will of the majority of people is totally repulsive to you, and you are unable to change it to what you would like, you have the option of leaving this society for another one or to be by yourself. You also have the option of overthrowing a corrupt government that isn't a true reflection of what the people want. What you don't have the option to do is to disassociate yourself from the government. You can't live in the country and receive the benefits, while at the same time thinking of the government as "them" and not as "us".

I was against the war in Iraq. I don't disclaim my responsibility for the war though. If I didn't want the war to happen, I should have stopped my government from taking part. Trying wasn't enough. We went to war, and I continued to live in this society. I took from it (in the form of protection, services, etc), and I gave to it(in the form of working and contributing to the economy, taxes, strength of numbers, etc). The fact that I continued to be a part of the society as it took those actions, makes me every bit as responsible as the biggest pro-war advocate. By continuing my daily life, I was giving consent. Only If I had abdicated my citizenship and left the country could I escape responsibility for it, and say it wasn't me over there.

Basically, it's not robbery because the government isn't a person, it's a reflection of what you want, and there's no crime in taking money from yourself. You also have the option of not giving to the government by moving elsewhere. You can do nothing and accept that the government is a reflection of your will, work to change the policies while accepting that in each moment the government is still reflecting your will even if you don't succeed, or sever ties with this country and leave, and then if they come and take your money it'll be stealing.

 

[Riprorin]

Where within the Constitution of the United States does the Congress have the Constitutional authority to enact legislation creating the bureaucratic nightmare also known as welfare?

 

[yowolabi]

In the Constitution, Congress has the right to make laws. They can make any law and create any bureaucracy they want as long is it isn't UNconstitutional. The Supreme Court decides if something is unconstitutional or not. As a citizen, you have the option of either electing candidates that will rewrite the laws, or attempting to challenge a law you believe is unconstitutional in the courts.

 

[BD2003]

On one hand, its MY money.

On the other hand, the benefits of helping the poor people out outweigh the disadvantages, and thats not even taking philantropy into account.

Theoretically, yeah, it is akin to common thievery. But have you ever been to a REAL ghetto, and not just seen it on tv? You can not possibly fathom the mindset of the people there, and how hard it is to break free of that. Its not that theyre all unwilling to get jobs, just that they are stuck in the system to a degree. Its not that they dont want to, they dont know HOW to, or the facilities and support needed for doing so are just not there.

So you take welfare and food stamps totally away. You now have millions of people starving without the know how to survive other than stealing. So they are going to steal. Nobody there has anything, so they are going to steal from you. Yeah, theyre not SUPPOSED to, cause its against the law, but they dont have any choice. Some are going to get caught, some wont.

So instead of using your tax dollars to feed them, youre now using them to pay for more police since your streets are more dangerous, and youve got to pay for more prisons to lock them up. Either way, youre paying for it, probably the same amount.

The solution to the problem is not to feed them or to lock them up, the solution is to educate them. Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day, teach a man how to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime. Some people are too vicious to be let out on the street, so theyve got to be locked up. Some simply cant work, and they need to be fed. But the majority are just stuck in a vicious cycle.

It is to the benefit of ALL of us to keep people from starving and out of the ghetto. You can keep sweeping the problem under the rug by giving a little here or there and saying if they dont get a job they should go starve. But thats just not working, as is pretty obvious.

For example, I live in new york city. I know ghettos when I see them. Actually going to and living near one has the same effect as when you first see the twin towers in real life. They look big on tv, but when you actually go up to them and look up its just "Wow...thats something else." I took a trip up to canada, and apparently got stuck in the worst ghetto in toronto. It was a garden by comparison to bushwick and bed-stuy. I couldnt believe my eyes. And while I could see that the people there were poor in relation to anyone else, I didnt feel like I was about to get shot. Canadians pay a ton more taxes, and its obvious that its a system thats working.

But this culture just does not seem to understand this. It is so individualistic here. If you cant do or figure out how to do something, its your fault for not knowing how. Everything is based on greed. Everyone wants as much money as possible. The same greed that stop people from giving a little here or there is the same greed that makes people want to rob you or sell drugs instead of getting a real job. Throw a little money around, and make it livable for EVERYONE. Help those out that need help, but go beyond handouts. Put that money into real programs, not half assed "we tried" programs. Next thing you know, most people will actually stop shooting and stealing from each other, because its not neccessary anymore.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

I agree with this.

I do feel that short-term unemployment benefits are good for society. My fiancee, for instance, is a degreed professional who was recently laid off through no fault of her own. She desperately wants to work. But she's having problems finding a suitable job in her field of professional experience and certification. Unemployment benefits are allowing her to pursue a job hunt.

 

[Shazam]

Remember this saying:

"The government has ultimate coercive control".

Repeat many times.

This is what differentiates the gov't from a thief - you can't fight back.

 

[Riprorin]

The constitution limits the power of congress:

The first limitation on the authority of congress is contained in Article I, Section 8 itself. Clause 18. Also known as the 'necessary and proper clause' and is quoted:

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

The next limiting authority placed on congress is the 'supremacy clause'. This clause is found in Article VI, Section 2 and is quoted here:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The first Constitutional provision proscribing congress from enacting law where it has no authority to do so is the Ninth Amendment ? the enumeration of rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Finally there is the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Not only does the Tenth Amendment tell the congress in no uncertain terms what their limitations are and to proceed no further than those limitations, i.e., stay within your small sandbox, the Tenth Amendment buttresses the Ninth Amendment as well and does so quite nicely ? thank you.

 

[dighn]

the government is not like a common thief. a thief takes money for him/herself. the government takes money to help society as a whole. they don't just give all their money to the less forutnate. they build roads, keep police forces, fund important researches, organizes evyerthing, etc. even though there are setbacks and inefficiencies, i think they are doing a heck lot better of a job than a bunch of private organizations would do

as for welfare i agree fully with BD2003. too much individualism in the world today.


and must we pollute ot with this? this belongs in that politics forum

 

[GermyBoy]

Originally posted by: Bv3
Taxes are part of living in a society. It's one of the fundamentals of any civilization.

Nope. If I ran the world, I'd kill everyone.

 

[misle]

I think that we should do two things to help create outrage about Taxes and promote change in the government's irresponsible spending:

1. Income tax should not be taken from your check. Everyone should have to write the gov't a check on April 15th. That way, you know exactly how much the gov't is taking from your pocket.

2. Change Election day to April 16th.

I can see the tax policies changing already...

 

[yowolabi]

Simply quoting passages doesn't tell me anything. I look at what you quoted and see nothing that makes welfare unconstitutional. Explain specifically why you believe those passages make it unconstitutional to pass laws on welfare.

You never responded specifically to my post about how you can't rob yourself, but instead are now arguing that it's unconstitutional. Is your silence consent that there are huge differences between a government and a thief? If not, why is my reasoning wrong?

 

[Riprorin]

By creating a welfare system, congress has usurped the powers granted to it by the constitution and has turned government into thieves. I don't see any defense of redistribution of wealth in the constitution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
In the Constitution, Congress has the right to make laws. They can make any law and create any bureaucracy they want as long is it isn't UNconstitutional. The Supreme Court decides if something is unconstitutional or not. As a citizen, you have the option of either electing candidates that will rewrite the laws, or attempting to challenge a law you believe is unconstitutional in the courts.

This is wrong.
In the Constitution is the Enumeration of Powers. This defines exactly what the government can do and clearly defines that anything outside or not listed in that enumeration is something that the government cannot do. This is so strict that the many of the Founding Fathers did not believe that the Bills of Rights was necessary (Thank God that was the minority).

See also the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In a nutshell, the federal government is only allowed to that which is specifically delegated to it in the Constitution, and is not allowed to do anything that is not. That is what UNconstitutional originally meant. Sadly, we live in a misguided nation today, one that been led to believe that our nation was formed as a democracy of the people, where the government can provide their every whim, when in fact our nation was established as a representative republic with a strictly limited government.
You may not understand this difference, so I will explain it. An unlimited democracy is the most tyrannical form of government possible, and the least stable. When a majority of the voters can empower the government to enslave a minority to their every whim, that's democracy. "Raise my neighbors taxes? Sure!"