New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

An interesting critique of the conservative view of poverty.

EatTheRich

President
Look, when Mr. Hamilton said these things, when he stated, " this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition...", he simply could NOT have been speaking of feeding and housing those who are deemed to be "poor" because as you have been informed by others here, poor people were there, their plight, whatever it may have been, was simply NOT among some, "vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition".

This issue was known of and was NOT among the things specifically addressed. Why?
An analogous argument: the combustion engine was invented in 1781. It was known to the Founding Fathers. Yet they did not appropriate money to provide combustion engines to the Navy. Therefore, the Constitution does not authorize the Navy to utilize combustion engines.
 

EatTheRich

President
It's still GENERAL welfare - the kind that benefits everyone! Not something that benefits certain citizens at the expense of others. Building a coast to coast road fits.
This, like any other government action, benefits certain citizens at the expense of others. Not only will some pay for it but derive no particular benefit from the road, but some will suffer (e.g., those involved in shipping freight by other means) a loss of business as a result.

What makes this, or food stamps, a proper expenditure for the general welfare is the aggregate benefit that the majority receives from it.
 

EatTheRich

President
Why is it all of you on the left lust so for the monies of other people to do with as YOU see fit, get all offended when this is pointed out?
Money doesn't just come into being belonging to people. In fact, it doesn't exist apart from the social environment that creates it, and the rules that determine who gets to dispose of the wealth created by nature and human labor. Under capitalism, money accrues to people who already have money, or to those who can serve them. Some leftists, such as myself, believe in a more democratic way of determining what should be done with the vast stocks of social wealth ... starting with the principle "to each according to his contribution."
 

EatTheRich

President
Through a variety of means - churches, public soup kitchens ( on a local/state level) or by economic opportunities born of increased trade or other advancements. Deporting the impoverished possibly. That is how the brits got rid of a lot of undesirables. Creating a war and a draft. That always worked pretty well, too.

connie
So you believe that mass deportation and war promote the general welfare?
 

EatTheRich

President
Oh really?

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.


No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

Where does any of that imply that money can be spent on certain citizens (say, the indigent) that is not in any way afforded to the rest (i.e. middle class)?
Is spending money for the indigent an appropriation that is general, and not local? Is it fairly implied by various other points in the Constitution?
 

EatTheRich

President
You don't agree with spending on the military but you certainly can't make the case that it makes you more or less safe than it makes me.
Of course you can. Modern military spending benefits the rich, who profit from war and threats of war, at the expense of the poor, who are taxed to pay for wars, killed in wars, and see their civil liberties come under attack as a part of the drive to war.
 

EatTheRich

President
General is NOT certain people, as long as they reside in various places around the country. General is everyone, everywhere.

The fact is that the poverty rate declined steadily...until LBJ decided we needed a vast array of new government entitlements to "fix" the poverty problem.
The fact is, hunger, homelessness, disease, and extreme poverty are down among the general population, Blacks, the elderly, and children as a result of the War on Poverty.
 

EatTheRich

President
The average reading score for 17-year-olds in 2012 was not significantly different from 1971.
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/age17r.aspx

The average reading score for 17-year-olds attending public schools was not significantly different from 1980.
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/age17r.aspx#0-3

Average reading scores for 17-year-olds in the 10th grade or below were higher in 2012 than in 1971, and scores for 17-year-olds in the 12th grade were lower in 2012 than in 1971.
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/age17r.aspx#0-7

Stop trying to blow smoke up our asses by using your old, outdated stats, ok?
So the dropout rate has significantly declined, yet the quality of education (which is now available to more people) has stayed about the same?
 

EatTheRich

President
And both are the result of the progressive dominated zeal to over regulate, over tax and over manage the value of the currency. Get the f*ck out of the way of the free markets for crying out loud!!!
Nonsense. The "free" market is what's driving down wages and putting people out of work.
 

EatTheRich

President
Exactly! The idea that we must be a "consumer based" society means that when people choose to not consume, then the government must step in and force us to do so. And then we wonder why it isn't working very well.

And the only reason we have to be a "consumer society" is because all the progressive policies have made it near impossible to produce anything here.
Actually, the "free" market has made it more and more difficult to produce anything here.
 

EatTheRich

President
On that we agree. You're not advancing the conversation here. I'm telling you why and what the fix is. Until that is achieved, wages will remain stagnant as workers here in the US become less valuable.
You said why (if I may paraphrase): too many poor people. Your "fix" (the gas chambers?) was implied.
 

EatTheRich

President
Are we working to make it freer or less free at this point?
Less free. Or to put it in less ideological terms, less anarchical.

Which way seems to produce better economic results?
The People's Republic of China, with its planned economy, has the all-time world record economic growth rate. The Soviet Union, with its planned economy, had the 2nd highest economic growth rate ever.

"Business has shown the need to be regulated." They also show a) an uncanny ability to still do bad stuff despite all the millions of pages of regulations on the books and b) the ability to use the proliferation of regulation to their advantage in their quest to become ever bigger.
Yup. Reform in itself won't solve the basic problems inherent in private ownership of the means of production.
 

EatTheRich

President
They may not be "satisfied' but they are not sufficiently motivated to do much else about it. If you can't see why being provided for is a hindrence to success - then you don't understand that pretty much the only thing that will drive most people is the desire to survive. You take away their need to work to survive, you have taken away 90% of what drives them.
Actually, for every $3,000 in benefits that a poor child receives before age 6, the adult that child becomes works an average 135 hours more per year and earns 17% more money.

You do know that the majority of people receiving welfare are children, right? Do you think that children should be forced to work to survive (as the children of the poor and enslaved were in the time of the Founding Fathers)?
 

EatTheRich

President
You are the one suggesting it enhances the "general welfare." If it has no effect on the effectiveness of the individual in contribution to our society, how can it possibly be considered to be a contribution to the "general welfare?"
Not starving is not a guarantee that one will be able to flourish, but mass starvation is a definite social failure. Being able to eat is a necessary condition for success but not a sufficient one.
 

EatTheRich

President
Call me sappy, but I continue to believe that there IS a way that people can profit AND say...the Chesapeake can be protected. I admit....I don't quite know what that way is, but I think I take a big step by simply insisting that it's there....somewhere.

Here's what I see....

1. Capital (GOP and Dem) is made nervous by this sort of thing, because it threatens existing capital in its suggestion of new capital models.

2. Populist/environmentalism (Mostly Dem) is made nervous, skeptical, resistant, or whatever, to the idea that a "good thing" can go hand in hand with profit.
Turn the current state of affairs on its head ... socialize the profits and individualize the losses.
 

EatTheRich

President
But laws proliferate for no good reason (other than to ensure the continuous expansion of the bureaucracy). You know, the interesting thing about is, no matter how many rules and regulations we promulgate, they never seem up to the task. I do think at a certain point you've passed enough laws...
Right. Society will just stagnate, no new technologies will be invented, none of the current social problems will get worse and no new ones will arise, and no one will come up with a better way of doing things. Let's just call it quits on the whole "representative government" thing and freeze the laws we have ... or better yet, the laws George Washington and Alexander Hamilton had ... in stone.
 
Top