Are Governments Responsible for Our Upkeep?

from JoeUser Forums

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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." --preamble, US Constitution

There's a lot of discussion among activists about whether the government bears responsibility for our upkeep. One of the most frequently used cites the preamble to the US Constitution, quoted above, and its clause "to promote the general welfare".

The flaw in their logic is the qualifier "general" before the word "welfare". Roads are "general welfare" because they improve the lives of the whole community rather than a specific individual. Hydroelectric dams, and even certain telecommunications services would qualify as well, because they similarly improve the lives of the whole community (as well as improve means of delivery for defense services, another stipulation in the preamble). Food stamps and  housing subsidies do not, as those are geared at improving the lives of INDIVIDUALS, not the general public.

"Ahhh," the liberal will argue, "but if you improve the quality of life of the poorest among us, you improve the economy as a whole". And, in fact, this is true. The question then becomes whether our current system of subsidies truly improves the quality of life. When I see someone who receives $400 or more a month in food stamps standing in line at the food bank, I'm inclined to think not.

You see, I can give you all the money in the world, but I can't teach you how to spend it. I can't teach you, for instance, that the delayed gratification in getting a 19 inch TV until you can AFFORD the 52 inch big screen will not only save you hundreds of dollars in interest if you buy through the rent to own place or with payday loans, but will, in fact, save you three figures annually on your electric bill. I can't teach you that if you make your food purchasing decisions around the weekly sales flyers and actively hunt down coupons, you can save 50% or more off of your food purchasing costs. I can't teach you how simply replacing your regular light bulb with a compact flourescent will save you FAR MORE than the inflated costs of the flourescent bulbs. Because, you see, those are the kinds of things one only learns if one HAS to live on a limited income. Families who have to struggle from paycheck to paycheck are FAR more likely to acquire the financial stewardship tools that will improve their financial standing over the long term.

An interesting argument entered the discussion today, one from a self professed liberal. The argument was that it was our BIBLICAL responsibility. While wholly ironic when you consider it comes from a representative of the end of the political spectrum that is trying to chase away what they perceive as the "boogeyman" of religion, and who consistently clamour for separation of church and state, we'll consider the argument on its merits: Does the Bible teach that GOVERNMENT is responsible for charity?

Short answer: NO! While it is true that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of its refusal to help the poor and needy (Ezekial 16:49), this is not the compelling case that it appears to be. For, as every Sunday School child in America knows, Abraham pleaded with God, who agreed to spare the city if ten righteous men were found in it. This makes it patently clear that the destruction of Sodom was for the sins of the INDIVIDUALS, and not of the government.

If you feel that the need for the government to keep our homeless off the streets falls under the "general welfare" provision, they should do so in the most cost effective means possible, as they are stewards of the resources they possess. Money should not be given to meet a food or housing shortage, FOOD AND HOUSING should be given to meet a food and housing shortage. And that food and housing should be as basic as possible, with no frills whatsoever. A diet adequate to properly nourish the individual should be provided, and tenements with the barest of necessities. In short, poorhouses. And these poorhouses should be located away from the urban populations where the criminal activities of certain elements among them will not affect the general populace. Those who wish to work should be provided the opportunity and trasnsportation, but should be required to put a portion of their pay into their support within the community.

Frankly, I find the above scenario nightmarish and frightening. I wouldn't want to see it come to pass in any context. But if such programs are the responsibility of the government, it is the government's EQUAL responsibility to ensure that they are enforced with the greatest efficiency. The sad truth of the matter is, we offer better benefits to many of our poor who do nothing to earn their standard of living than we do our armed services personnel, who stand on the wall to defend us. And that should stop.

To answer my title question, I do not believe governments are IN ANY WAY responsible for our personal welfare. I believe that we should encourage private charities to meet the needs of individuals, and let government get on with the business of governing. They're having a hard enough time doing THAT.

 

politics
11,968 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Agreed.

I don't believe in welfare or foodstamps. Why you may ask? Being one who has recieved both and also helped others get it (family members) by being a translator, I know what it's like to get and how hard it is to let go.

As a teen I use to be the one who went with my aunts to the welfare office in NJ and translate to the welfare agents from spanish to english and backwards. Including my mother. One of my aunts still get's welfare and foodstamps after so many years ( around 20). I myself found myself in situations where I had to get foodstamps. But I wish never to do that again. Never liked the idea of taking money that so many people have to pay out of their taxes (including me). I would rather struggle till things got better. But when you realize how easy it is to get it and not have to work while getting it, it makes it really hard to let go and you even find yourself trying to find ways to keep it.

That's why I don't like it. I can understand that there are some people who need it non-handicap), but even they can find ways to better themselves and get off of it. If unemployment money is temp why not do the same with welfare and foodstamps? JMO.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree.  There would be a lot less waste and fraud as well.  And as the Money multiplier clearly shows, money the government spends does not helpt he over all community as well as the money you and I spend.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr Guy

If the Fed provides help to the poor (food stamps for example) 100% of that ends up back in the economy. If the Fed helps build a bridge, the contractors and workers receive the money. If the Fed buys an Army Tank the company and people who make it and the suppliers who provide the parts make a profit and pay wages that are in turn spent and returned to the economy. When we borrow money the way Bush has, 40% of that interest go outside America and NEVER returns to our economy.

The idea that government spending does not return to the economy is a myth. In fact help to the poor and infrastructure spending return at a rate of just about 100% back to the people. Tax cuts to the middle income workers also are spent and help the economy. Tax cuts to the very wealthy do not fully returned to the economy but end up in part in the accounts of the wealthy.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Tax cuts to the wealthy! Tax cuts to the VERY WEALTHY!"
Blah blah blah. I got a tax cut too, and I am not at all wealthy: I am a civil servant! Middle income, four kids... yep, I contribute to the economy in my small way.
And I got a tax cut. And last year I got a rebate check too.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Blah blah blah. I got a tax cut too, and I am not at all wealthy: I am a civil servant! Middle income, four kids... yep, I contribute to the economy in my small way.
And I got a tax cut. And last year I got a rebate check too.

Heck, I got a tax "cut", and we are, by legal definition, POOR. As far as federal income taxes go, we receive back more than we pay in. We still pay taxes (sales taxes, property taxes, etc), but the way the tax system is structured, we get back more than we paid. The "new improved" Col Gene (read: Pat Robertson/Mikey Moore hybrid) insists that I should be paid back EVEN MORE money that I didn't pay in in the first place, and I, for one, find his altruism with other people's money to be disturbing, to say the least.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Col Klink, you are a friggin fool.  You dont know what the hell you are talking about.  I would suggest you pick up a text on MacroEconomics and read it.  What I said is not my feelings.  It is FACT.  Of which you have none.

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
We still pay taxes (sales taxes, property taxes, etc), but the way the tax system is structured, we get back more than we paid.

My dad, who avoids taxes as best he can, proudly said he paid state tax last year.
I asked how is that, since his state has no income tax.
His response? Gasoline, cigarettes, sales tax...
Oh yeah, we pay overt and covert taxes, so any relief is welcome.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, you amaze me... How is it you find so much time to write great articles....humm.

Now, on the question at hand. No, governments are not responsible for our welfare, a helping hand is another story. This is the land of opportunity for all regardless and I am the best example of what's possible in this country.

As a child my family was on welfare with zero income. Dad was a drunk, often gone. When home mom loved to antagonize him regularly. By the time I reached 6-7yrs I was fending off my fathers drunken belligerent behavior in hopes he wouldn't beat on my mom or little sister. We traveled miles in all types of weather to get our helping hand brown bags of foods. I was greatly appreciative of those hand outs along with those that came from the catholic church. Although getting gifts from Santa (grandpa on my moms side) really was exciting too..

Hand outs or charity affected me, I just didn't know how much. I was thankful the people in the store front handing out the food helped my crumbling family. All I could do at the time to earn money was shovel snow and do errands for neighbors. Both grandfathers held VP titles at a major auto manufactures, and all my uncles on both sides were executives there also. Every body lived really well, you could say they were wealthy except for my dad and mom.

I eventually looked forward to those times when my mom would walkout on my dad, taking my sister and I home to her parents. The best part was home cooked Hungarian foods and steak... that was a big treat. One that burnt a motivating impression into my psyche that's lasted a life time. For extended periods there was no money, except borrowed, for a long time we had no TV, no transportation and cloths with holes. Yet, I always had a positive attitude. I use to say when I grow up I want to be like my grandparents, rich. Have steak anytime they want, a big homes and buy what ever I wanted when ever. We moved from trailer to trailer, to grandma and grandpas back to a really small trailer then to a small farm in the outskirts of no where vill then into the city.

Later when I reached 10-12 my parents separated. Eventually on one of the visitation trips with my dad got blind drunk after leaving his 12step meeting... Again he attempted to beat my sister but I said no. I was about 14yrs that time, fed up and decided to fight back. After busting a lamp over his head and beating him to the point of unconsciousness I took my sister in the dead of night and walked through the snow for 12 miles to a phone, called my grandpa for ride to safety. My parents finally divorced soon there after and we moved in with my grandparents. When time allowed I worked on farms. I attended 12 schools to the 9th grade and was put back in 8th because of how often we moved.... There's more to the story but I think I made my point.

I don't want to hear all the moaning and groaning about this and that. Being poor was the best and worst thing that could have happened to me. I know what the homeless experience, know what it's like to be beat up daily by a drunk... and know what it's like to wonder where my next meal is coming from or if I will survive.... Yet, I didn't grow up with a concept of entitlements. I wanted to earn a dollar as often as I could so I pushed and pushed.

It can be done.... God never owed me anything other then solitude and the protection of his guiding hands. As for the government owing us, no way. Monetary help, that's another story and repayment should be considered. It could be said that my success and the outrageous taxes I've paid over the last 30yrs has helped to repay my childhood welfare debt..
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Absolutly!!

The Federal government is mandated by We the People to provide national infrastructure, State and local governments are in place to provide the same at their level and jurisdiction.

We the People maintain the most freedom when we take responsibility for ourselves, our families and (on a voluntary level) our neighbors and friends.

In a free society, it is up to us (not the government) to stand and produce. If we are not free enough to fail, we can never be free enough to succeed.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

As a child my family was on welfare with zero income. Dad was a drunk, often gone.

OT: SOrry Gid.  But thanks for an idea of another question.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Both grandfathers held VP titles at a major auto manufactures, and all my uncles on both sides were executives there also. Every body lived really well, you could say they were wealthy except for my dad and mom.


Not to pick on you, Titan, but I think this underscores a major component of the welfare problems we have in this country.

Family, friends, and neighbors no longer take care of each other. When there are family members who live in excess, they should be the first to offer a helping hand rather than allowing their loved ones to resort to accepting hand outs from the government.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
But of course, since you're a neocon, you don't have a problem with welfare for corporations and the church. Just a little hypocritical, don't you think?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
When there are family members who live in excess, they should be the first to offer a helping hand


My family was transplanted Euros that arrived back in 1920, like others. They wanted opportunities to work and care for their families which is why they came here. No sooner had they arrived the they tasted the depression. So, everyone cared for one another as best they could. That's all changed sociologically today in many ways. I don't believe it's a families job to supply ongoing welfare to other family members that lack self motivation.... We got some periodic help. When I was a child I never expected those with to pay the way for my irresponsible parents.

My parents were adult children, lazy and lacked the proper parenting skills that lacked "shame". They were always hoping to get someone to pay their way. I am happy family didn't go overboard with enablement, because the long term consequences are horrifically expensive and more importantly emotionally draining. The reason family, neighbors and friends no longer care for each other is from the 20's-50's the cost of living wasn't nearly what it is in recent years and people were more appreciative.

When I consider your idea and apply it to my 13 yr old son, I see more damage then motivation. We have everything and then more which I've earned. Believe it or not, it's had a derogatory affect on him because he doesn't know what work is, how to prioritize or give naturally. By the time I was his age, I was looking for any ole job to make a few bucks to help others. I won't support enabling lazy entitlement mentality's which is found in both poor and wealthy offspring. Its one thing to ask for help, it's another to expect to be cared for indefinitely....
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes they are responsible for my upkeep and I WANT A RAISE!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: BenUserPosted: Thursday, December 22, 2005
But of course, since you're a neocon, you don't have a problem with welfare for corporations and the church. Just a little hypocritical, don't you think?

For the last time you simpleton! (can you read english?  I am not sure of your brain level), Gid is no Neocom!  Do you even know what the hell you are talking about?

I guess not.  Just a robot with no brain.

What a loser

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I was a child I never expected those with to pay the way for my irresponsible parents.


Someone DID pay the way...higher wage earners who were not family paid your family's way instead of those who love and care for you and yours.

Look, I'm not against government assistance. It certainly has a place. However, when possible, the help should come from family members, churches, friends, and neighbors instead of from the American tax payers.

They were always hoping to get someone to pay their way.


And they got that. Through welfare.

The reason family, neighbors and friends no longer care for each other is from the 20's-50's the cost of living wasn't nearly what it is in recent years and people were more appreciative.


I believe the reason is partly because welfare is like free money, whereas assistance from family members is met by some expectations (repayment or lifestyle expectations). Additionally, people no longer see it as their responsibility because they don't HAVE to help. The government will do it for them.

When I consider your idea and apply it to my 13 yr old son, I see more damage then motivation.


At age 13, you should still be providing for your son's needs, so I'm not sure how this even remotely applies.

Believe it or not, it's had a derogatory affect on him because he doesn't know what work is, how to prioritize or give naturally.


That's a parenting issue.

Its one thing to ask for help, it's another to expect to be cared for indefinitely....


Welfare = more likely to be expected indefinitely. Family assistance = short term help (embarrassment and expectations play a factor in that).

I'm not criticizing your family specifically. We all do whatever we need to do to take care of our families. I do, however, feel that the demand for tax payer-funded welfare would decrease dramatically if we were to choose to step up and care for our own families.

I think it's pretty unethical to expect the government to provide for the needs of my family when I have the means to do so myself. My family = my responsibility.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

But of course, since you're a neocon, you don't have a problem with welfare for corporations and the church. Just a little hypocritical, don't you think?

How do you define corporate welfare?  I've found that some people consider tax breaks to be corporate welfare. That's nonsense.  When the government confiscates less money from individuals or companies that's not welfare.  Welfare is when you're literlaly paying someone money for doing nothing.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
When we borrow money the way Bush has, 40% of that interest go outside America and NEVER returns to our economy.


Leave it to you Colon Bin Gangrene, to turn this into a Bush bash. {{{Spit}}}
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, I agree.

COL:

If the Fed provides help to the poor (food stamps for example) 100% of that ends up back in the economy.


And so it would if the government provides help to the rich. I doubt that "general welfare" includes government giving money to individuals, but if it does, it certainly doesn't say that these recipients must be the poor.

I know it's a ridiculous idea to give hand-outs to the rich; but so it is to give hand-outs to the poor, at least when based on the term "general welfare" which does not make a difference between rich and poor. And neither should we.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

But of course, since you're a neocon, you don't have a problem with welfare for corporations and the church. Just a little hypocritical, don't you think?


Yes, to assign opinions to other people is hypocritical.

Gideon is neither a neo-conservative nor does he support welfare for corporations and "the church", whatever that means.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it's pretty unethical to expect the government to provide for the needs of my family when I have the means to do so myself. My family = my responsibility

I agree with you to the extent that idealisms, whether conservative or liberal loose applicability when applied to life. Although my immediate family took some welfare, both sides of the family put in more to the system then was taken out.. As parents or family leaders we're charged with teaching character, values, and about taking responsibility. In retrospect 99.9% of my family turned out highly productive and morally sound. The family that produced 2 misfits, also produced one that created more employment opportunities then my whole family to date... So, although your theory has merit, as our great system stands all it takes is one person to make a dramatic difference.

At age 13, you should still be providing for your son's needs, so I'm not sure how this even remotely applies.

I completely understand and accept the charge. We're talking about Govt Upkeep, the value of it and associated mentalities. I was trying to show that regardless of income, entitlement mentality's can result...just because.

Welfare is when you're literlaly paying someone money for doing nothing.

This is the version of "Welfare" that I am opposed to... and it's more common today then when I was a child and my family used it, never abused it. Back then I believe there was a greater number of folks with pride and shame. Two qualities that appear gone in the masses today.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tax cuts to the very wealthy do not fully returned to the economy but end up in part in the accounts of the wealthy.


Either you mis-stated or you're not privy to how wealthy folks save and spend.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm still waiting for my raise!

~taps foot impatiently~
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Either you mis-stated or you're not privy to how wealthy folks save and spend.

No, he is just plain ignorant.  So how stuffed is your mattress?

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The marginal propensity to consume is part of economics that shows you will spend LESS of each added dollar the more money you have. Thus, if tax cuts or welfare payment go to low or middle income people, nearly 100% is spent and is returned to the economy. When that same money ( from tax cuts) is returned to the wealthy and very wealthy, less then 100% is spent. The higher the wreath of the recipient the less that will be spent and more will go into the savings/investments of the higher income groups.

In addition, the wealthy have enough money to provide all they need and then some. The poor do not. Thus government help to the poor and tax cuts to the middle income families not only return more to the economy but enables the poor and middle income Americans to have the necessities of life that the wealthy enjoy without tax cuts or assistance.

The deficit we are running adds to the interest we must pay which sucks money out of the economy since 40% of that interest is paid to foreign investors. So we are cutting taxes to the wealthy which increases the deficit and the interest while ignoring the needs of the poor and middle income workers that would help our economy while providing assistance to those that need help. The Bush policies are doing just the opposite. His policies give help to the group that has everything they could ever need or want and takes from those that have very little! Look at the things that were cut in the 2006 budget Food Stamps, Medicaid and student loan help. Great Job George, Dick and all you GOP conservatives! You have added a few more links to the chain attached to your money box.