But the practical ability to get an abortion is so restricted that it's a right without practical application for many of the women who need them the most. And our new emphasis on contraception and adoption counseling isn't going to solve that problem. An unwanted pregnancy can't always be made a wanted pregnancy with good counseling or financial help, and giving birth for adoption isn't always as emotionally uncomplicated as in the movie Juno. There are times and circumstances which make abortion a necessity for the individual for reasons that cannot and should not be judged by the state.
Digby pointed out that the pro-life folks may have a hard time finding the common ground Obama called for in his talk. For them abortion is murder and that's the end of the discussion. It seems like it's always like that between liberals and conservatives. Why is that?
How do you feel about this? Has there been a sort-of underground movement on the part of the Religious Right to make abortion unavailable even though it's legal? Are they the same characters who have slipped Creationism into school curricula, with surprising success? Do you think the Obama administration will be able to correct some of these abuses? (I know, they're only abuses if you think like I do, but don't forget this is my blog).
Please feel free to leave a comment.
You want to come to the table and talk to us about how capital punishment is good for society?
ReplyDeleteYou see that as murder like I see abortion that way. Meanwhile none of us in the middle are claiming, say Nicole Brown (just grabbed a murder I think we all know) somehow deserved to die, or was killed in the right.
We all see murder as wrong, we all draw the lines differently, and on issues like this we draw very personal lines, and honestly in any of these circumstances any sort of universal right-or-wrong doesn't exist, unless you believe in the laws of a supreme being that cannot be readily observed or displayed to others.
That makes bending on the issue a might bit hard.
Hmm, perhaps you don't give people enough credit.
ReplyDeleteI've read it many times, by my own hand and others on this board, that we think abortion is murder but we want the right to choose to be there.
However, you see capital punishment as murder but don't want to let the people decide if each case merits it.
Who is the one saying "end of discussion"?
Just for fun:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c&eurl=http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/003266.html&feature=player_embedded
Good point, Bob. I'll have to think about that. In fact, it was in the back of my mind when writing the post, the idea that both sides tend to think the other is not only wrong but close-minded to being persuaded.
ReplyDeleteDon't be so hard on yourself, Mike. You're only wrong on MOST of the issues, and you do make a few good points on this whole death penalty and abortion stuff.
ReplyDeleteStill you gotta let go of that goofy magical thinking nonsense when it comes to guns.
It's time to grow up on that issue!
oF COURSE,I've already said my piece about the tiniest people still being people --even if not fully developed. The new born, e.g., is not fully developed, but in process of growth and development --just like the fetus. In fact, we are all continually changing --uphill and then down!
ReplyDeleteYes, the religious right has discouraged public funding for abortions with some success. AFter all, why should I pay for an abortion I don't believe in. Murder is serious business; don't fund it with MY dime. I don't want that blood on MY hands.
Your post, Mike, talks about abortion being unavailable for "those who need it most." They don't NEED it. The child needs to live. We need the children.
I do believe in the laws of a supreme being, WB, and I believe that they WERE displayed to us in the Ten C's --"Thou shalt not murder." At the same time, the Jews practiced (biblically) capitol punishment for certain acts.
Did you hear some of those oh-so righteous Republicans bitching about Obama's Stimulus Package- the part about the funding of contraceptives?
ReplyDeleteSeems that don't like contraception nor abortion nor the welfare mother with six kids.
What the hell DO they like?
Mud Rake,
ReplyDeleteHow about Personal Responsibility?
If you want to have 6 kids, great.
If you don't want to have kids, great.
Either way...pay for it yourself. Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for your CHOICES...That is what conservatives like.
Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for your CHOICES...That is what conservatives like.
ReplyDeleteOne quick question, Bob- did you vote Bush/Cheney once or twice?
Mud Rake,
ReplyDeleteMy choices for president were made in the privacy of the voting booth.
What difference does it make?
Either way...pay for it yourself. Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for your CHOICES
ReplyDeletea slightly sarcastic question that has an honest point buried within its ribbing:
why do you CHOOSE to be a member of a society, bob? why not go live as a hermit in a cave somewhere? then nobody would ask you to pay for anybody else's choices, at all, ever.
(i'm a socialist because i am convinced that living in a society means --- among countless other things --- constantly paying to help out other members of society, and having them help you out in return. that's what society is for, to me.)
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteI choose to be in a society for many reasons. The benefits of things I can't afford to do on my own is one of them. I can't field an army, pay for a road, build a hospital by myself. My tax dollars, combined with others, can build those things.
Those items are used by everyone and are for the community good. Having someone use the road when I'm not on it doesn't take anything out of my pocket, right?
The problem I have is that I'm being told that sex, abortion, marriages are PRIVATE choices and I don't have any business telling people what they can and can't do. I agree but then people turn around and say "Pay for my abortion". Can't have it both ways, either it is a private matter that should be handled by the people involved or it is community business. If it is community business, shouldn't we have the right to say if abortion is acceptable or not?
Let's turn it around the other way. I have determined, through research, debate, and personal choice that going individuals going armed is a good thing.
Should I be able to make Mike and other gun banners pay to keep me armed out of their own pockets, against their choice?
And it isn't just one firearm, but as many as I want to have...because it is my choice?
Bob said, "Either way...pay for it yourself. Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for your CHOICES...That is what conservatives like."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't "you" end up paying for it anyway as the welfare rolls swell. No abortion, unwanted children by the millions, who, as they grow up with no fathers and unconcerned mothers will clog the juvenile court systems. I guess we could try them as adults as soon as they reach 10 or so, because let's face it, people are responsible for their actions, right?
I say it'd be better to provide health care services to women including teenagers who want abortions. But, either way, we all pay.
I say it'd be better to provide health care services to women including teenagers who want abortions. But, either way, we all pay.
ReplyDeleteon this, i fully agree with mike. it's one of the many reasons Planned Parenthood is such a great organization --- by providing healthcare and birth control to people who might not otherwise afford it, they prevent vastly greater drains on the public coffers later on. i've benefited from the prophylactics they dispense for free myself.
My choices for president were made in the privacy of the voting booth.
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does it make?
Well, Bob, to use the word 'difference' from the famous Robert Frost poem, The Road Not Taken, "and that has made all the difference."
Mud,
ReplyDeleteYou still didn't answer the question. My choice for president is relevant to this discussion how?
As I viewed the choices then and now, it was a choice of the lesser of two bad choices. I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else about my choices for president unless you can convince me of its relevancy.
Nomen, Mike
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the same problem only delayed?
Wouldn't "you" end up paying for it anyway as the welfare rolls swell.
It seems that the choice is I pay for someone else's decision to have unprotected sex and not do the right thing. I don't care what sex people have but if they can't afford the consequences...I shouldn't have to pay for them now or later.
Welfare, as originally designed, was a stop gap measure to keep people from starving. The travesty that the system has become actually keeps people on it and keeps them down.
In my opinion, supporting the current version of welfare is actually harming those people on it.
We have gotten away from a culture of self-reliance, much to the worse of our country. Welfare and the mentality that goes with it is harmful.
I don't see where anything in the world dictates that I have to pay for someone else to have room, board and medical care...especially medical care that I disagree with in the form of abortion.
You want to fund abortion, go ahead, use your money. Does the majority have the right to enforce their will on the minority? I thought we fought a civil war to answer that question. How is it any different if I'm forced to work 8 or 16 hours out of each week for someone to have an abortion?
Your paradigm of "either pay for it now or pay for it later" is false. It doesn't have to be an either or....why not go back to the best of self reliance?
Gun Control, War on (some) Drugs, Welfare, Medicare all are working to make people dependent on the government, not themselves.
I'm tired of hearing of how someone has a right to an abortion paid for by the government. That government is me, the taxpayer.
It seems that the choice is I pay for someone else[...]
ReplyDeleteyes, that's how society works. you help your fellow citizens live better lives, you help ease their troubles and solve their problems, at your expense. and they do the same for you.
all your complaining that "they got into their troubles through their own choices" is so much pointless grousing. i could argue that no, not all of them are themselves to blame, but i won't bother to because that's beside the damn point.
it's not about assigning blame for troubles and forcing the guilty to suffer; living in a social group is not about that sort of thinking. it's about helping your fellows out, regardless of what choices they may or may not have made, regardless of who might be at fault or to blame for whatever they might need help with. solve the problem, ease the suffering; assigning blame can come later, if you still want to bother with it then. right now people have problems to solve and griping about blame won't get them solved.
all your grousing about choice and blame and whatnot is so much whining, bob. it's whining about how you dont want to help solve problems, how you don't want to pay for making other people's lives better and easier. and that's just not what living in society is about. your complaining just makes me think that you're secretly pining for that cave in which to live your private hermitage. nobody else's "choices" would trouble your pocketbook there, bob --- are you sure you wouldn't be happier that way?
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteSorry to be crude but bullshit. It's not pointless grousing. It's pointing out that people aren't taking responsibility for their lives. It is about pointing out that while I help people out I want to be able to choose when, where, why and how I help people. NOT having the majority vote how to spend my money on other people's personal lives.
The Constitution spells out the limited powers of the federal government. Why do you think they deliberately left out the right to abortion, the right to welfare, the right to a place to live at everyone's expense but that person?
Because it is not the job of the government to do that. Haven't you wondered why Welfare hasn't been eliminated decades after the "War on Poverty" was declared?
It's because when you support something you get more of it. People see that they don't have to work, so they don't. Now there are some, many that use the system they way it should. Unemployed for a while, get money, food, medical care while looking for a job then go back to paying into the system.
For a vast number, it doesn't work that way. They take from the system, the people, without giving back. If you want to support those people, fine do it. Have fun....but don't cry out for me to help you pay for it when more and more people start asking, demanding money.
You say:
it's about helping your fellows out, regardless of what choices they may or may not have made, regardless of who might be at fault or to blame for whatever they might need help with.
Wrong, should I be forced to take a criminal, say a rapist into my house because of the choices he's made? Put my wife, daughter at risk because others don't want to point out his actions are too blame?
The "no fault" system you describe is a fairy tale that doesn't and can't exist in the real world. Criminals have to face the consequences of their actions....take the blame and the fault. Those that get pregnant and get women pregnant have to deal with the consequences of it, right?
Here is an idea of what I'm talking about Relationship between the Welfare State and Crime
A few quotes, but read the whole thing
Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
Welfare allows the father, so vital in a family to be replaced by a check from the taxpayer. And society pays for that in many ways. Why should we keep paying for a system that increases crime?
Long ago, having a child out of wedlock impacted the family in immediate ways....making it a very unattractive idea. Today, not so much impact because of welfare.
Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
To end with his closing remarks
In conclusion, let me simple say that, whatever Congress eventually decides to do in the way of welfare reform, I hope that you will recognize the disastrous consequences of our current welfare system. The status quo is plainly and simply unacceptable. The relationship between our failed social welfare system and juvenile violence and crime is one more urgent reason for reform.
It is about pointing out that while I help people out I want to be able to choose when, where, why and how I help people. NOT having the majority vote how to spend my money on other people's personal lives.
ReplyDeletethat pretty much settles the issue, bob --- you do want to live alone in a cave somewhere. because in any real human society, other people WILL tell you to help out other members of that society, even if you DON'T think they deserve your help. that's what i meant to begin with; societies simply don't work the way you seem to want them to.
FWIW, we may have a definitional disconnect in our use of language; even after a decade, i'm still not that great at the American dialect of english. when i hear "welfare state", i think Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, or to some extent France, Germany, the Benelux... countries that have comprehensive welfare systems which don't break down in any of the ways you're afraid of. welfare states work --- i know, i grew up in one. for you to try to tell me they don't is pointless, might as well claim the sun really rises in the west, when i have seen that it is otherwise.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteIt may be a disconnect in wording. I think of those countries as socialists.
Want to see a welfare state look at Louisiana for an example, in particular New Orleans.
During Katrina there was an obvious difference between those on welfare and those not. And it wasn't money, it was dependency.
I want to end the dependency on the government. In places like New Orleans, there have been generations where no one in the family held a permanent job for any length of time, if at all.
You continually accuse me of wanting to live in a cave, it's a false accusation. Why?
Because I say let's do those things listed in the Constitution only as government jobs and let society handle the rest?
Government agencies are notoriously ineffective and inefficient. Look at the defense industry as an example. It doesn't make sense to continue a system that doesn't work, isn't going to get rid of the problem and actually exacerbates it. That is all I'm saying. Not people shouldn't be helped, you have NO idea of what works I do, what charities I support.
Just because I don't want the government in everyone's lives doesn't mean I want to live in a cave.
You continually accuse me of wanting to live in a cave, it's a false accusation. Why?
ReplyDeletethat's a semi-joking way to take what i think your principles are (though i may be misreading you) to what seems to me to be their logical conclusion.
you seem very leery of rendering aid to your fellow citizens unless they seem to you to be somehow sufficiently deserving of aid. it's hard for me not to suspect that nobody is truly sufficiently deserving to you, that given the opportunity you'd tar anyone who might need help with the brush of "their own bad choices brought their troubles on themselves" and refuse to render aid. that you're being a scrooge, in other words. i hope i'm wrong in this suspicion, of course, but a lot of the language you're using makes the possibility hard to ignore.
and the logical conclusion, the reductio ad absurdum, of the mindset of a Scrooge is that they don't actually want to contribute to society --- in which case it would be more honest of them not to partake of it either.
Government agencies are notoriously ineffective and inefficient. Look at the defense industry as an example.
...er, the defense industry is all private sector. the military which buys its products is part of the government, but Raytheon, Lockheed, Newport News, and their fellows are generally publicly traded companies.
the government is by no means "notoriously inefficient"; medicare runs at a much lower operational overhead than private health insurance companies, for instance. it's easy to think the government is inefficient, because the public sector is so often called upon to take over infrastructure tasks that can't be made to make a profit in private hands --- but "unprofitable" is not the same as "inefficient". you wouldn't want medicare to run at a profit, for instance, nor even the postal service really.
Well, Bob, about voting for Bush/Cheney: For many years now I'd had 'discussions' with people who label themselves as 'conservatives' yet they voted twice for Bush/Cheney.
ReplyDeleteMany, like you, throw out the 'lesser of two evils' excuse. I don't buy it at all. Not ONE spending bill received a VETO in all 4 years of the first term. Not one!
Tell me about being 'conservative.' Or are you just a social or religious conservative?
What did Bush say, "Fool me once....ah..ah... shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Did you?
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteLet me make it very clear, something you are having trouble reading from my words.
I am not leery of helping my fellow man. I am leery of giving the government more power and more money to do things it is ill equipped, ill suited and not constitutionally justified to do.
Just because you believe the best way to run a society is to have a powerful government doling out benefits, taking money as it chooses doesn't mean I see it that way.
I think that people have the right to keep their money and see it spend on the charities of their choice...individual freedom versus majority vote on how to spend my money.
The defense industry wastes money in response to the government demands and requirements. In any government private industry interaction, the efficiency decreases with governmental involvement.
You say Medicare runs with lower overhead, I would be interested in seeing any evidence.
I don't think the postal service should make a profit, but I think they should perform as well as their private counter parts. And I don't see that efficiency at all.
I do disagree with your characterization of me as Scrooge. Don't confuse the individualism with unwillingness. I've said repeatedly you don't know me, what activities, charities or support that I give any more then I know what you do.
I see all too often the false dichotomy that Mike posed: Either I pay for abortions or I pay for Wefare. I see there are other ways and seek to move our country that way.
What is wrong with moving back to the point of people taking more responsibility for their actions?
Did you read the testimony to Congress? Can you see how a society that replaces values with monetary support looses? That is what Welfare is bring, has brought to our country to its detriment.
I see the argument for welfare much like the argument for firearm rights. Just because I want more people to take responsibility for themselves doesn't mean I want to get rid of the police. Nor do I blame anyone for calling on that assistance....just don't want to see that be the only response people have.
Welfare is teaching people, generations of people that the only solution to a problem is the government.
Bob, I see you have to defend yourself as I do against charges of Scrooge-ism and other insults.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right on this, IMHO.
Ind. U. just announced results of a study of charity and once again, it has been shown that conservatives of all economic levels give 5 times more to charity than liberals.
5 percent of their income compared to 1 percent for more liberal people.
and Obama and Biden gave something like 1 percent of their incomes in the past --and Obama has increased that modestly since campaigning. They aren't tithing.
Evangelicals have many tithers as a way of supporting churches and their ministries --and give over and above to para-church charities, missions, homeless ministries, pregnancy centers, the needy of all sorts.
We have been the most prosperous and generous nation without being socialistic.
Did we all see the video of the lady who rejoiced at Obama's election because it meant she was going to have all her financial needs met? She believed it.
When I think of all the people who get checks from the gov't now, it's no wonder we are so in debt.
Our constitutional obligation is to provide for the common defense, a military --and it makes sense that we provide the roads, bridges and other things of public benefit --but individuals need to study hard in school for jobs so they can take care of themselves -- our aid should go to those who are truly unable to care for themselves. Are we MAKING more people dependent by upcoming policies? I fear so.
Can anyone guess what portion of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs, e.g. Social Security (Welfare), Medicare, Medicaid?
ReplyDeleteNomen, If I weren't so satisfied with the job Obama's doing, I'd vote for you for President. Oh, I forgot you weren't born in the U.S, besides it's not election time anymore, and most importantly, Tom made it very clear I had no business voting anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thought though.
You say Medicare runs with lower overhead, I would be interested in seeing any evidence.
ReplyDeleteokay. the hard data is in the board of trustees' annual report, as required by law:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
scroll down a bit to the section on administrative expenses.
these pages are worth reading as well:
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7271
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html
http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2008/11/22/probably-not-a-panacea-not-even-an-placebo/
I don't think the postal service should make a profit, but I think they should perform as well as their private counter parts.
that's impossible, because the postal service exists in no small part to do jobs its private counterparts refuse to attempt in order to cut their costs.
(and what do you mean, efficiency of the private delivery services --- have you tried to get a postcard delivered to, say, Japan by means of UPS or FedEx lately? their rates for that are not competitive with the postal service...)
I see all too often the false dichotomy that Mike posed: Either I pay for abortions or I pay for Wefare. I see there are other ways and seek to move our country that way.
i see only one other way, and that is to pay for neither and let the country devolve into something the fictional Scrooge would have recognized perfectly. a society where nobody has to pay to help out their fellow citizens if they don't want to has already been tried in practice; Charles Dickens described it well, and the misery of it was such that Karl Marx prescribed violent revolution as his preferred way to get out of that situation.
i'd prefer to avoid a communist revolution if we can. social democracy is much less violent.
What is wrong with moving back to the point of people taking more responsibility for their actions?
only the fact that it's a utopian pipe dream. it relies on human nature somehow changing, for no well defined reason; but human nature doesn't change. that's what's wrong with the communists' utopian pipe dream, and that's the reason anarchism doesn't work either.
you can't move "back" to any such hypothetical golden age, because human nature hasn't devolved to what it is today --- there was never a time when humans were radically different in such a way as to take more responsibility for their actions. human nature is what it is and has been, and so will it remain; you won't make plaster saints out of 'em, not even if the plaster saints would be more responsible.
Can anyone guess what portion of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs,
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll guess: more than you think necessary?
Imagine your HARD-EARNED money going to those old people and to the sick!
Communism, I tell you, COMMUNISM!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMud,
ReplyDeleteWhat exact part of the Constitution provides the federal government with the authorization and the power to take money from one citizen and give it to another?
http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/budget/federal-budget-pie-charts
ReplyDeleteTheir source: Congressional Budget Office, January 2008, and Final Monthly Treasury Statement for FY2007
This address is for the budget and income pie charts.
War resistors website had different percentages. Judging from their pie chart, the military retirees and other military and wars were the biggest percent--whereas all the other social programs were the biggest piece of the pie on the pie chart I provided address for.
Bob- read the Preamble and report back later.
ReplyDeleteWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] 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.
ReplyDeleteExplains why they want to do things...but I don't see any authorizations, those are listed in the Articles, right?
The "general welfare" is for the welfare of the country, not a single person.
Let me ask you a question that I find most liberals unwilling to answer or live.
If you believe it is the right thing to do to reduce income inequality, insure that "poor" people have medical coverage, housing, food, etc, are you living your values?
The poverty level for a family of 4 in America is $21,200. For a single person it is just over $10,000. Before you or anyone else forcibly takes money out of my pocket, shouldn't you and everyone who agrees with you be giving up your money?
bob - given that us liberals (and certainly all social democrats, as i am) generally want to do our income redistribution through means of taxation, your question is effectively just a weaselly way of asking if we're all tax cheats.
ReplyDeletewe're not. speaking for myself, i neither am nor ever have been.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteNope that isn't what I'm asking. I don't care if you are cheating on your taxes or not.
I think a more effective and definitely a more ethical approach would be for those of a belief to live it completely before they start forcibly requiring others to live a belief the others don't support.
That is what I am asking; If income inequality is a problem, are those who believe it in living their values, i.e. donating all their "extra" income to a charity, to a foundation, heck even to the government. I defined "extra" income as the poverty line in this case because there are people, families living below it.
Before using the federal government as an armed accomplice to facilitate your beliefs, religious or not, shouldn't each person be doing it voluntarily?
Before forcing me to support programs not authorized in the Constitution, shouldn't it be done to voluntarily?
I think a more effective and definitely a more ethical approach would be for those of a belief to live it completely before they start forcibly requiring others to live a belief the others don't support.
ReplyDeletesee, by this sort of "standard" i ought to demand you go live in a cave before debating social policy with me. that would be just as valid, by the exact same logic.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteI don't get how you can come up with that. Is debating me taking money out of your pocket?
Am I forcing you to support policies and procedures that you disagree with?
As I expected, there is no answer about living the values/principles proclaimed.
bob, you've gone off the map, and your compass has been demagnetized. you seem to have lost track not only of what i'm saying, but of your own points and arguments too.
ReplyDeletei answered your question --- i pay my taxes to help support my fellow citizens. i want those taxes raised, in order to provide better support to more people, and i'll happily pay the higher amount if i get my way. for you to ask me to do anything more, or substantially different, than that is equivalent to me asking you to... well, see above.
Bob writes, The "general welfare" is for the welfare of the country, not a single person.
ReplyDeleteWhen did you become a Constitutional lawyer?
How does 'the general welfare' exclude the single person?
A nation is its people, not a bounded entity in an atlas.
Of the People, by the People, and for the People.
A nation is the society and their welfare needs to be promoted by said state.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteSorry but I don't see your comparison.
In one case people are trying to use the government to extract more money out of individuals to pay for medical that are directly related to another individuals behavior (abortion).
In the other case, it is a matter of having a discussion about that goal.
How is it off the map to ask if people who want to pay for others' abortion if they are paying for the abortions before they ask me to pay for them?
Mud,
It is pretty simple to understand what is written in the Constitution. It just requires a little reading and thought, that might explain why you have trouble.
Sorry but couldn't resist returning a cheap shot.
The preamble set out the reasons why we have the constitution. The general welfare is understood to have the government work for what is best for all the people, not just one. Remember that little contretemps they had 200 years ago, getting rid of a King (one person).
I agree with this A nation is the society and their welfare needs to be promoted by said state. but the power of the government is limited. Those limits are defined in the Constitution. Show me where, in that Document, where the power to redistribute my income to someone else resides.
That is what we are talking about, communism, socialism; forms of government not authorized by the Constitution.
The federal government was supposed to be constrained to a few powers. If a local government wants to implement greater benefits at the cost of higher taxation, I wouldn't have a problem with that. That is the right of the people within that state or city.
I noticed that you also didn't answer the question. If you are so concerned about paying for other people's abortions, their food or housing needs....are you doing more then minimum required?
Are you living up to the principles you exclaim by equalizing your income to the lowest levels in America?
Shouldn't you try to solve the problems by yourself and those like minded before using the armed might of the government to take money that my family needs?
Bob- you were making some sense in your reply to me, but when you raised 'abortion' the entire reply lost its value.
ReplyDeleteHow did 'abortion' become associated with the discussion on the meaning of the powers of the Constitution?
Unless, of course, we are back to the actual subject of this thread.
Which is it, Bob?
Bob made sense to me, Mudrake.
ReplyDeleteBecause we are now paying for abortions abroad, since Barack's Exec. Order, and FOCA will mean we pay for all the poor people's abortions. National health will mean we pay for everybody's health insurance whether or not they contribute to the pot or not. That's OK in the case of the disabled and the truly needy--we already pay for their care --and help the elderly, too. But gov't will soon have a new expensive, inefficient healthcare bureaucracy which WILL be exploited --especially by lawyers whose bread and butter comes from suing drs, hospitals, nursing homes for imperfection and death. Private insurers become gov't employees. That will be as effective as the public school system vs. private.
Show me where, in that Document, [the constitution] where the power to redistribute my income to someone else resides.
ReplyDeletethe sixteenth amendment, bob. that, along with the "general welfare" clause of Article 1, section 8. any other part of the constitution you'd like for me to read out loud for you?
Just so I can keep track, I'll copy things here.
ReplyDelete16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Okay, the government is authorized to collect money from income. But I don't see anything in there about spending it on someone's abortion or a paying for a particular person's medical care. Do you?
Section 8 seems to be a little long, so I'll copy what I feel is relevant, please let me know if I've missed anything.
Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
As I understand the argument against regressive taxation is that it violates this particular wording. Certainly those making less then 10,000 a year don't pay taxes at all. The last numbers I saw were over 30% of all people had not federal income tax burden or actually got back more then they received.
Again the "general welfare" isn't a term meaning the "welfare of Joe Bob or Becky Sue" but refers to the welfare of the country as a whole.
Any evidence that it was meant to say something else?
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
This is the closest thing I see to any authority, but here is the kicker; It is limited to the powers vested in the Constitution. I don't see paying for someone's abortion listed there, much less paying for birth control in Mexico.
The argument is about what the FEDERAL government is authorized to do and what it should be doing.
I'll state it again and again; helping out our fellows is what we are supposed to do, but I don't see any authority for the federal government to do it to the extent that it has.
Let's be very sure and clear on what "medical coverage", "income security", "reducing the income inequality" is, it is pure and simple redistribution of wealth from those that earn it to those that don't or don't make as much.
I'll state it again and again; helping out our fellows is what we are supposed to do, but I don't see any authority for the federal government to do it to the extent that it has.
ReplyDeleteThen, you would draw some line in the sand?
Where would such a delineation be made between the 'extent' that Congress has to spend tax dollars?
I believe the answer lies in the elected members of that body, as we have representative government. If you don't like how your representative spends 'your' precious money, throw the bum out!
federal income taxes certainly are uniform throughout the united states. if you earn X dollars, you owe Y dollars in taxes --- there's no "unless you live in Bumfuck, Michigan" clause in the tax codes.
ReplyDeletewhat, you thought the constitution demands exactly equivalent outcomes for every individual citizen in the USA? sorry, no, it doesn't work that way.
I don't see anything in there about spending it on someone's abortion or a paying for a particular person's medical care. Do you?
"provide for the [...] general welfare" covers that quite well.
As I understand the argument against regressive taxation is [...]
you meant to say "progressive taxation". regressive taxation is what we have in actual practice right now, and the argument against it is that it redistributes income from the poor to the rich; it makes the poor poorer and the rich richer.
Again the "general welfare" isn't a term meaning the "welfare of Joe Bob or Becky Sue" but refers to the welfare of the country as a whole.
sort of like how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't refer to any specific people, only some generalized "militia" that never seems to have any particular, individual members? is that how you mean it?
Let's be very sure and clear on what "medical coverage", "income security", "reducing the income inequality" is, it is pure and simple redistribution of wealth from those that earn it to those that don't or don't make as much.
exactly! that's why it's a good thing!