Obama's Second Bill of Rights is coming

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Sly1one

 

Bastiat understood the meaning of Socialism, he knew it to mean worker ownership of the means of production. His statement about government is correct but he was referring to Monarchy not Socialism. He wasn't fond of Socialism for sure, but he certainly did not confuse it with government.

...what do you mean confuse socialism with government?? Its a form of government because it requires all the mechanisms of a government to be implemented, regulated and enFORCED...if you wan't to ignore this you can but it ignorance doesn't make something true...and it certainly doesn't reinforce your position.

I find it odd you are an expert on Bastiat...I find it even more odd his quote describes socialism perfectly...yet hes referring to a monarchy...that he called a government instead of a monarchy...thankfully your here to straighten out his inability to clearly communicate what his opinions were...

You can have your socialism...leave me out of it though.

Hey People we are all wrong!!!!

It is a human right to corporate products since that is what housing,healthcare,education are it is a human right to use government take from the so called greedy and give to the needy who apparently can't do anything whatsoever on their own so they can go out and buy corporate products.

Someone's pants are on fire!

Poverty, a growth industry in New Zealand

New Zealand's biggest growth industry isn't agriculture or manufacturing – it's poverty, a Waikato University professor says. Social scientist, Professor Darrin Hodgetts, said New Zealand was "growing poverty". "It's our growth industry and it's growing at three times the OECD average," Prof Hodgetts said. According to the OECD at least one in five New Zealand children live in severe or significant hardship, while at least one in four children lived below the semi-official poverty line. According to figures, the richest 1 per cent of the population owns three times more than the combined cash and assets of the poorest 50 per cent. Hodgetts is an expert on homelessness and has researched the experiences of marginalised groups in New Zealand. "Things like Working for Families have had an impact but they haven't stopped the growth and the OECD figures are pretty conservative," he said. New Zealand had gone from one of the most equitable societies – in terms of income distribution – to one of the worst.

reply to post by XPLodER



www.stuff.co.nz...
1 in 4 are below the poverty line in NZ and growing!

Originally posted by neo96
Hey People we are all wrong!!!!

It is a human right to corporate products since that is what housing,healthcare,education are it is a human right to take from the so called greedy and give to the needy so they can go out and buy corporate products.

lol one man's rights are another man's obligations...apparently.

I didn't know other people's rights were MY responsibility? Odd how I was deluded all these years...how incredibly selfish and inconsiderate of me...

I guess this means I can find a less stressful job with fewer responsibilities and continue to live like a rock-star...at the expense of all those responsible people stupid enough to "work hard" of course...I just hope to god they don't catch on to this loop-hole and do what I'm doing...might have some problems if everyone did that.

/sarcasm off

reply to post by Ghost375


They didn't mean welfare the way it is today, that was FDRs brain child.

It meant keeping us safe to pursue our own paths.


Stop twisting the real meaning. There was no welfare until the 1930s. It was never intended. Churches, family and charities take care of those in need.

Originally posted by timetothink
Someone's pants are on fire!

Poverty, a growth industry in New Zealand

New Zealand's biggest growth industry isn't agriculture or manufacturing – it's poverty, a Waikato University professor says. Social scientist, Professor Darrin Hodgetts, said New Zealand was "growing poverty". "It's our growth industry and it's growing at three times the OECD average," Prof Hodgetts said. According to the OECD at least one in five New Zealand children live in severe or significant hardship, while at least one in four children lived below the semi-official poverty line. According to figures, the richest 1 per cent of the population owns three times more than the combined cash and assets of the poorest 50 per cent. Hodgetts is an expert on homelessness and has researched the experiences of marginalised groups in New Zealand. "Things like Working for Families have had an impact but they haven't stopped the growth and the OECD figures are pretty conservative," he said. New Zealand had gone from one of the most equitable societies – in terms of income distribution – to one of the worst.

reply to post by XPLodER

 

www.stuff.co.nz...
1 in 4 are below the poverty line in NZ and growing!

that wouldn't have anything to do with the financial crises from wall street would it?
or the global economic down turn?

or globalisation and sending our manufacturing to china?

as i said "its an ideal" a goal.

we face austerity because of our investment in wall street. among other factors.

xploder

At least things didn’t get worse. For half a decade, the percent of Americans living below the poverty line has increased each year, from 12.3 percent in 2006 to 15.1 percent in 2010. Today the Census Bureau released its analysis of U.S. poverty in 2011, and the official poverty rate essentially held at 15 percent, meaning that 46.2 million people live below the poverty line.

www.businessweek.com...



The rate of poverty in the US is 15%, not 1 in 4, but less.


So I am going to stay with capitalism for now, thanks.

Originally posted by timetothink
We have a minimum wage, no hospital ever turns anyone away for failure to be able to pay, we supply single mothers with nourishment for their children and food stamps for themselves. We have shelters and soup kitchens, free education for low income.

No thanks to republicans who fight those things tooth and nail.

reply to post by timetothink


here are the numbers,

The lowest-wage workers increased their annual work hours by 22%, but their hourly wages only grew by 7.7%.

In contrast, workers in the top tier of wages increased their hours by 7.6% but saw their hourly wages increase by 30.2%.

And while it looks that real annual wages for the whole workforce grew during this time period, "for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners, this stemmed roughly as much from increased work hours as increased real hourly wages," the paper finds.

“The data suggest that Americans started working more hours in part as a coping strategy to ensure some income growth in the face of very slow wage growth,” Mishel said. “In contrast, wages grew quite quickly for top wage earners. Workers, especially those in the bottom sixty percent, have been working much more but have had very modest gains in real hourly wages."

www.commondreams.org...

i contend that the workers are working MORE and HARDER and earning less for their hard work,
you contend that these people are fat lazy and arnt doing their fair share.

a fair days work for a fair days pay.

xploder

reply to post by Ghost375


Because it is not the responsibility of the government, hence why I said read our constitution and the federalist papers.

Around and around we go.

Originally posted by timetothink

At least things didn’t get worse. For half a decade, the percent of Americans living below the poverty line has increased each year, from 12.3 percent in 2006 to 15.1 percent in 2010. Today the Census Bureau released its analysis of U.S. poverty in 2011, and the official poverty rate essentially held at 15 percent, meaning that 46.2 million people live below the poverty line.

www.businessweek.com...



The rate of poverty in the US is 15%, not 1 in 4, but less.


So I am going to stay with capitalism for now, thanks.

edit on 30-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

i dont advocate any ISMs

i am not saying capitalism doent work,

but unfettered, unrestricted, capitalism that ONLY benefits the "owners" is unsustainable,

and if the middle class is wiped out who will be able to "afford" the goods and services on offer?

billionairs dont by millions more pairs of jeans,
they cant replace the number of burgers bought by the middle class,

what happens to apple when nobody can afford their phones?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I was talking about people that do not want to work at all, they bring the numbers down.

And most people at the top already work ridiculous hours, 60 plus a week. The average working joe doesn't like putting in more than 40 a week....it's to hard. Poor things.

reply to post by timetothink


They say "general welfare." GENERAL. How are you going to try to narrow it down? We're supposed to try to lift up the weak in our society.

reply to post by XPLodER


Then businesses close and the economy resets, that's what should have happened with Wall Street, the banks and the car companies.

reply to post by Ghost375


That is not what they meant by it.....

You can say it all you want, but it did not have the same meaning then.


They did NOT constitutionally obligate us to help others lift up.

This is what is meant by general welfare.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business.

Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people.

There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”.

It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people, which logically means that it MUST be limited in scope, for the MORE a government undertakes, the more oppressive it becomes. Government MUST be ANCHORED in fundamental principles (see lecture notes).

www.lawandliberty.org...

Please everyone read the most important document of our country and the writings of those that enacted it.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by timetothink

 

They say "general welfare." GENERAL. How are you going to try to narrow it down? We're supposed to try to lift up the weak in our society.

Have you ever heard of charity?

You can't legislate charity.

Did you know that charitable contributions go down as taxes go up?

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Then businesses close and the economy resets, that's what should have happened with Wall Street, the banks and the car companies.

we agree on this point,
just look at iceland, suffer the short term losses and let banks fail (capitalism)
seperate the assets from the losses and down size the banks,

it works out cheeper than giving money at 1% interest and bailouts in the long term

xploder

Here is the 1829 definition of welfare and how it pertains to the constitution. The constitution provided for the welfare of the state of the unions, not the individuals.

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.] 1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons. 2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

www.reasontofreedom.com...

In case anyone cares to read how the founders felt about poverty, they believed government forced charity goes against natural law and impedes liberty.




In our Founding Fathers’ vision, what about the poor?


thelcn.com...