Maggie's Farm

why is that important to you?

I don't know who would be surprised to learn the Chocolate Nagin is a dem.

Re: Is this good site really for men? The Art of Manliness

a male who needs a website to tell him how to be a man is someone who got lost on the way to the castration mill.

from the site ...

"all welfare should be abolished".

you're using "welfare" in a hot-button way that suggests that you're opposed to government spending on things you don't like. are you equally opposed to homeless shelters as well as federal tax breaks/subsidies for venture capital?

it would probably help to clarify your thinking if you stated what level of government you're talking about.

like I said, figuring out which government you're talking about might help clarify your thought. state governments have general police powers (health, safety) so long as they don't contradict federal constitutional rights, and providing welfare is among those general powers. the fed can provide emergency relief under the commerce clause (Art.1 Sec.8) the spending clause and a few other sources. congress has been doing this since the early 19th century.

I'm still not sure what you mean by corporate welfare. although you can point to probable fraud as in the green energy scam, that is only an example of misuse, rather than an indictment of the concept itself. it seems to me that used correctly, government incentives to encourage risk capital is a good idea, when there's a net benefit to the public e.g., the transcontinental railroads financed by federal land grants and subsidies or tax breaks to a Target store in an economically depressed area. we can argue the particulars of individual recipients but are you really saying that no business should ever be assisted by the govt in any form? loan guarantees, tax breaks, direct payments? never?

work disincentives. most, but not all, of the people I know who have been on unemployment or used food stamps have not stayed unemployed for any longer than it took to find another job, even though the marginal benefit of a paycheck over unemployment could hardly be justified in terms of an hourly wage. others see this differently, and while I'm happy to allow any one who doesn't work the opportunity to starve, I'd rather not see their children go hungry, hence, WIC, etc.

"My comments were exclusively about the federal government. I apologize if that wasn't clear."

no problem, setting out debate parameters is important.

"If you have the right to private property, the government should not be able to take your money and give it to someone else. It's not private if the government can pass a law and say that what was yours is no longer..."

the takings clause of the 5th amendment only guarantees that the government can't take private property without just compensation. so they can take your property.

"I don't know how you can say that emergency relief is granted under the commerce clause or spending clause. Maybe you can educate me. ..."

that would be a tedious task. so I found a readable brief, link: The Legal Landscape for Emergency Management in the
United States http://www.webcitation.org/5xnPVOOIb
see page 9, and the endnotes with citations to various cases, statutes, etc. you don't have to like it, and there are well reasoned criticisms, but its the law. let's not get into a discussion on judicial review/Marbury v Madison. if there's anything worse than cherrypicking constitutional in these kinds of discussions, I don't know what it is.


"Corporate welfare is when the government pays money to a company for a non-governmental task. Obviously, the government can hire a private company but does not have the right to bail out its unions, management, suppliers, indemnify it against loss... Whether you or I think it might be a good idea or not is irrelevant (in my mind and in the Constitution). The reason we have all these lobbyists is because government has taken the power to hurt or help a company rather than letting the company mind its own business. Loan guarantees, tax breaks, direct payments - no. If the company cannot borrow money on the open market, I don't want my money put at risk. The tax law should be standardized across all businesses (at least as much as possible considering the different business constraints a type of business faces), and there should be no direct payments. Is government the piggy bank for businesses? Should some business be bailed out regardless how poorly run it may have been or how poorly it managed risk? All you have to do is have a friend in government with their hands in my (and lots of other's) pockets and you're golden. That's basically part of what happened in 2007. Sorry count me out. If the management knew they were on their own, they would be a lot more careful."

I take a practical approach, as long as the subsidies are legal, have safeguards for the pubic fisc, and benefit the public in some way (e.g., transcontinental railroads, tax breaks for investment in depressed areas, tax breaks for R&D, aid to keep US companies competitive against foreign companies having their own government assistance, aid to keep small companies viable where the profit margin is small and the market is unstable and where there's some advantage to preserving a number of producers, and, let's see, natural monopolies.
.
"I would never say that everybody had the same response or threshold for disincentives to work. However, there was a time when the dirt poor were too proud to take a handout. Those days are gone and so is our pride."

our national mythology of them thar good ol' days.


"I don't want kids to go hungry either. That is why I would contribute to charities that would ensure that they are fed and at the same time, help the parents deal with the responsibility and make sure they don't need it forever."

while that's laudable, there's not enough charitable giving for that to be a viable solution.

"The things you espouse lead to companies and people who are less careful. If you never fail, you miss an opportunity to learn something as failure is the greatest teacher - much better than being bailed out and even better than success."

I think risk capital should be encouraged with government support and US companies protected against unfair competition from foreign companies, and other economic goals reached, and if the best way to do that is with government aid, great.

"The concept is simple. We pay the government to protect us and ensure our rights. One of our rights is private property ergo, the government should not take money from me and give it to somebody or some company that didn't do anything to earn it. People who are truly needy should be recipients of charity that is voluntarily given."

the constitution disagrees.

"You are most efficient when spending your own money on yourself and/or family. You are less efficient spending somebody else's money on yourself and you are lest efficient spending somebody else's money on somebody else. When the government does it, it is or easily becomes a vehicle to buy votes."

welcome to democracy. buying votes is how things work here, its how they always worked here, its how they will always will work here.

[re takings clause]
"So when they take your money to give to somebody else who does not do anything to earn it and you certainly get no benefit how are you compensated?"

do you understand the difference between the takings clause/eminent domain and taxation? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. are you saying that eminent domain is not constitutional? it is, and was inherited from english common law. are you saying taxation is not constitutional? it is (state = general police powers, fed = 16th Amendment). you're making an emotional appeal rather one based on constitutional law.


"[regarding pride in not taking what was not earned] our national mythology of them thar good ol' days.
It's a fact that the government has had to sell it's "charity" to its recipients in the early days. Now it's advertising food stamps in Mexico. Cool, eh?"

are you pointing out abuse? well, fantastic. fix it.

"[regarding charity]while that's laudable, there's not enough charitable giving for that to be a viable solution.]You are saying that people are compassionate enough to be forced to "help" the poor but not compassionate enough to do it voluntarily."

I know the public as a whole is not compassionate enough to help all those who need helping. no need to be compassionate though, just pay into the general fund. I wasn't around before 1960, but if you tell me that no one starved or went hungry or homeless because of private compassion, I'll laugh.

"[regarding the general premise that the government is to protect our liberties and private property]the constitution disagrees.]"
this is a misrepresentation of my position.

"Show me. I have quoted one of the primary authors of the Constitution"

because his opinion carries very, very little weight in the real world of constitutional law. the Famous Founding Fathers are great sources for cherrypicking out of context quotes, especially on the internets where commentators adopt cut up constitutional law to fit their needs. I could tell you there are two hundreds years of judicial interpretation of the constitution plus more than a dozen amendments, plus all of the other rules of interpretation, but you wouldn't believe it.

"with regards to the government's involvement in charitable enterprises and you have quoted the takings clause which says the government must compensate me if it takes my property. Where does it say in the Constitution that the government has the power to take my money and give it to someone who did not earn it?"

see above, the power to tax and spend on anything, including give money away to anyone is a general police power of every state, and as for the fed, I've linked you to a legal brief outing the source of these powers. I'll be happy to explain specific issues, but this is very complex area. its easier to argue by platitudes, but I am not going to do that.

"[regarding relative efficiency in spending money]welcome to democracy. buying votes is how things work here, its how they always worked here, its how they will always will work here.

So you're argument is to institutionalize vote buying? Government of by and for the wealthy and connected! I guess all that "We the people" business was a bunch of claptrap to sooth the masses. What they were really after was a system where you are a pawn who only thinks they have a say in the way they are governed."

votes have been bought and sold from day one of the USofA. special interests have had a disproportionate voice in the government from the beginning. I'm astonished every time I find some who is unaware of what is fairly obvious. the brilliance of the constitution is that replaced the rule by divine right with a rule of law. every garden variety attorney you know has beaten corporate attorneys, beaten government prosecutors, won takings cases and tort claims against the government. so I don't buy into this poor-me victimization BS, that's a demoncraptic tactic.

I've got to agree. arguing with stawman versions of my own arguments isn't doing much good.