Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Annabelle_Marie]

I think we need to cross the party line and vote for candidates who hold Christian values if you are a Christian.

If you are a Christian and do not support Christian values, it is time to stop calling yourself a Christian. Nothing complicated.

Sadly in my state…both are “pro-choice” so now what? In then end…I may just have to go with the guy who has more experience. Everybody always says what they are “going” to do but they really don’t have a clue on how government works and how things can get done.

For example, here in Oregon…we have a crisis with the general fund…everyone says cut all government…welll problem is…what is run on general fund is prisons, state police, schools, oh and human services…foster and senior care included as well as the state mental health hospital. So…if it’s so easy…where do you start?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

All taxation is redistributive - from the taxpayer to a defense contractor, from the taxpayer to the schoolteacher, from the taxpayer to the people who benefit from the project being constructed, from the taxpayer to the farmer, etc. etc.

When elected representatives apply money in ways you do not like, it isn’t stealing.

from taxpayer to the state trooper…

 

[bbarrick8383]

All taxation is redistributive - from the taxpayer to a defense contractor, from the taxpayer to the schoolteacher, from the taxpayer to the people who benefit from the project being constructed, from the taxpayer to the farmer, etc. etc.

When elected representatives apply money in ways you do not like, it isn’t stealing.

State and local taxes to school teachers because we all go to school in that state. The feds have the power to tax for the defenses of the states, if the project being constructed is in NY then let NY’ers pay for it, farmer subsidies go to corporate farms not the farmer…the government has done it’s job in shutting them down.

Redistribution of wealth, means to take from the collective to give out to a few in the name of charity from the government.

If I have to pay for your healthcare, do I have the right to tell you how to live? Does the government somehow inherit the right to tell the doctor how to run his practice? Where to live? Who to see? We will see a decline in the number of doctors, watch and see. When Texas passed Tort reform, there were several doctors who left OKC just to practice in Texas. Just over tort reform, which I don’t remember Obamas exact words on why tort reform was not in his plan, but I do remember him brushing it off as if it meant nothing.

If you are overweight and I’m footing the bill for your healtcare, can I come to your house and force you to lose weight? What about homosexuals, if they were to take advantage of the system does it give me the right to force them to stay away from their partner? Drug users? Alcoholics?

“Your right to be you, includes my right to be free from you”

We can not take away from one and give to another without restrictions on the one receiving what was taken and not expect the one who had his earnings taken away to put up with it for long.

 

[PTL]

You assume wrong. But I was actually the primary caregiver for my mother who was on Medicare, was not denied treatment and she lived to nearly 90 yrs of age. Medicare if you don’t know is a government healthcare program for people age 65. I have older siblings on Medicare and they are not denied care either just because they are 65. I however am not 65 and have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for care in our lovely private sector system.

No one is going to be denied care at 65 because of their age. And anyone who makes such a statement is spreading falsehoods for politcal reasons and nothing more. And it is past time you are called on it and it past time for it to stop!

Please, what you are talking about is the Medicare today, the Medicare before Obama Care.
In 2014, when Obama Care takes place (God forbidden), 65 or older will be denied.
You mixed today’s Medicare and future Medicare! That shows you don’t know lot of critical issues this Obama Care is about. There are many more outrageous issues in this 2700 pages unconstitutional bill. That is why 20 states are suing, and more to follow.

 

[Good_News_1]

Redistribution of wealth, means to take from the collective to give out to a few in the name of charity from the government.

Taxes, by their nature take money from one pocket, and put it into another pocket - to a police officer, a contractor, a military contractor, a doctor, a teacher in an Iraqi school, a farmer, or somebody else. This is redistribution of wealth. You may like the reason, or not like the reason.

You keep saying the same illogical thing: that somehow giving the money to an Iraqi school or university professor is different in kind than giving it to someone who is poor, such that is it stealing. This makes no sense. It isn’t stealing in one case, and not stealing in another. It’s a government policy you don’t like.

 

[PTL]

Sadly in my state…both are “pro-choice” so now what? In then end…I may just have to go with the guy who has more experience. Everybody always says what they are “going” to do but they really don’t have a clue on how government works and how things can get done.

For example, here in Oregon…we have a crisis with the general fund…everyone says cut all government…welll problem is…what is run on general fund is prisons, state police, schools, oh and human services…foster and senior care included as well as the state mental health hospital. So…if it’s so easy…where do you start?

If both party are pro-choice, I would choose the one with small government v.s. big government. We need government, but not big government that controls our lives. Currently the Obama administration is heading toward Marxism. The Church teaches that Marxism is evil. Big government makes people totally depend on the government so they can control each individual completely. The way this government is heading - unlimited spending, waste, deeper in debt, paralyze economy, free hand outs with more national debt, raise of tax, control internet, taking away freedom of speech… All these are big government and pavement for Marxism. It is very scary!

 

[bbarrick8383]

Taxes, by their nature take money from one pocket, and put it into another pocket - to a police officer, a contractor, a military contractor, a doctor, a teacher in an Iraqi school, a farmer, or somebody else. This is redistribution of wealth. You may like the reason, or not like the reason.

You keep saying the same illogical thing: that somehow giving the money to an Iraqi school or university professor is different in kind than giving it to someone who is poor, such that is it stealing. This makes no sense. It isn’t stealing in one case, and not stealing in another. It’s a government policy you don’t like.

It is not illogical. If you are the direct recipient of funds from the federal government just by filling out a piece of paper saying you paid x amount in payroll taxes, they return y amount to you and y > x. That is direct redistribution of wealth. It has nothing to do with paying firefighters or any other service that we all contrbute to in case we need them.

Obama himself said, there is nothing wrong with taking something away from someone after they have experienced success after years of hard work and labor and giving to someone else so they have a chance.

There is something wrong with it. There is nothing Christian about the government doing that against the will of the people.

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism “such as tax laws, monetary policies, or tort law” [1]. Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich[citation needed]. The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.

 

[bbarrick8383]

In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."10] James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure that would have provided $10,000 of federal aid to drought-stricken Texas farmers. When explaining to Congress why such an appropriation of taxpayer money was inappropriate, he stated:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. … **The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.**11]

Read that? Encourages expectation of paternal care on part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it PREVENTS the undulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strenghtens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Hate to say it, but folks in those days were wiser than they are these days.

We may be smarter by virtue of natural progression, but we don’t have the sense to run a country the way our ancestors did.

 

[Black_Rose]

Read that? Encourages expectation of paternal care on part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it PREVENTS the undulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strenghtens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Hate to say it, but folks in those days were wiser than they are these days.

We may be smarter by virtue of natural progression, but we don’t have the sense to run a country the way our ancestors did.

Is there any empirical evidence a welfare state ruins the bonds among citizens? As for me, I am not enthusiastic about private charity since I do not want to find myself as a recipient of a food bank, and I do not want others to experience the same humiliation.

But as for me, I strongly believe that promoting a welfare state trumps life issues because I believe the welfare state is the sign of a virtuous modern civilization and the best way to ensure that the needy are provided for. And I will never sacrifice the welfare statist ideals for a pro-life agenda.

 

[Good_News_1]

That is direct redistribution of wealth.

So is everything else the government does.

It is the nature of taxes to redistribute wealth. The only question is whether you, personally, agree with the purpose

You keep saying the same thing, but it doesn’t make any more sense by virtue of repetition.

Anyway, you don’t apprehend the difference between “redistribution of wealth” as an ideal and the idea of temporary aid with the idea that people will improve their situation.

The government does things you don’t like. Me too. No need to dramatize it.

 

[dmelosi]

So is everything else the government does.

It is the nature of taxes to redistribute wealth. The only question is whether you, personally, agree with the purpose

You keep saying the same thing, but it doesn’t make any more sense by virtue of repetition.

Anyway, you don’t apprehend the difference between “redistribution of wealth” as an ideal and the idea of temporary aid with the idea that people will improve their situation.

The government does things you don’t like. Me too. No need to dramatize it.

The entire problem is what you think is “temporary aid”. I would bet you that EVERYONE on here is for temporary aid. But the problem with this increase in redistribution is that it is not temporary aid for people, but a way of life for many, and it hurts growth for the individual and for the country as it discourages the creation of new jobs which we all need.

 

[Good_News_1]

The entire problem is what you think is “temporary aid”.

It’s a side issue, but the rhetoric behind welfare has always been towards the eradication of poverty, and under welfare reform, people spend less time in welfare programs. The point is that taxes are taxes, not stealing in some isolated cases.

 

[dmelosi]

It’s a side issue, but the rhetoric behind welfare has always been towards the eradication of poverty, and under welfare reform, people spend less time in welfare programs. The point is that taxes are taxes, not stealing in some isolated cases.

Side issue? It is the reason it hurts and not helps. Isn’t to help the reason for redistribution?

 

[Good_News_1]

Side issue?

As to the terminology discussion, yes, unless the position were that it’s stealing if welfare recipients are on the rolls two years, but not stealing it they are on for one - which doesn’t make much sense.

What is the average length of receipt of welfare benefits?

 

[Good_News_1]

virtuous modern civilization

Wouldn’t a virtuous society rely more on private charity than un unvirtuous one?

And I will never sacrifice the welfare statist ideals for a pro-life agenda.

Is there a sacrifice necessary? Why can’t you be pro-welfare and pro-life?

 

[dmelosi]

As to the terminology discussion, yes, unless the position were that it’s stealing if welfare recipients are on the rolls two years, but not stealing it they are on for one - which doesn’t make much sense.

What is the average length of receipt of welfare benefits?

urban.org/publications/900288.html

According to the testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee linked above, 70% have been on for more than 24 months and 48% more than 60 months. The study goes on and explains that there are often more government subsidy than just welfare.

I do not say it is stealing but an indicator of what increased dependency (redistribution of wealth as happening now) will do.

 

[Catherine_D]

It is very clear that redistribution does not work to eradicate poverty.

The most massive program to eradicate poverty ~ the so-called “War on Poverty” of President Johnson’s “Great Society” ~ was instituted in the 1960’s. Now, at least 45 years later, if such methods actually worked, there should be no more poor people. Yet there are more poor than ever.

Instead of eradicating poverty, we have created a permanent underclass of people dependent on government assistance, intact black families in particular have severely decreased, and there are just as many poor as before, if not more.

Clearly, this is not the way to solve the problem of poverty. When something doesn’t work, new methods need to be explored.

 

[Good_News_1]

urban.org/publications/900288.html

According to the testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee linked above, 70% have been on for more than 24 months and 48% more than 60 months. The study goes on and explains that there are often more government subsidy than just welfare.

Thank you.

I do not say it is stealing but an indicator of what increased dependency (redistribution of wealth as happening now) will do.

I’m not sure what this really means. Before the Great Society, there were poor people, some of whom were chronically poor. Are there more chronically poor now? If so, it doesn’t naturally follow that welfare is the sole cause of increased chronic poverty.

But, at least we are in agreement that isn’t stealing.

 

[CMatt25]

I would bet you that EVERYONE on here is for temporary aid.

Well perhaps. Though I’d be fooled by some of the rhetoric and by whom many on here are advocating for. If someone is advocating for the Tea Party. Take Alaskan Joe Miller as just one example. He thinks unemployment benefits are unconstitutional.

newser.com/story/100972/joe-miller-jobless-benefits-unconstitutional.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser

The problem Miller and Beck and many on here have when they argue this and that value is unconstitutional is they actually overlook the Constitution.

Miller wants to be shown the enumerated power. OK.

The 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And that’s where those who advocate such nonsense as the federal government only has an extremely limited function such as the right to tax for defense purposes and we don’t have this right or that right under the Constitution are missing the boat.

As the Constitution states if we the people want certain rights not mentioned or enumerated in the Constitution, it does not mean we shall be denied these other rights. And if we want the right to have the federal govt to tax for unemployment benefits or healthcare, or what have you. And these things are retained by the people through their votes and the subsequent laws of the land, then, sorry Misters Miller and Beck and many on here. But under the Constitution so be it.

And under the common decency of those Christian values advocated by Christ for the aid of those less fortunate. So be it as well.

 

[Catherine_D]

Well perhaps. Though I’d be fooled by some of the rhetoric and by whom many on here are advocating for. If someone is advocating for the Tea Party. Take Alaskan Joe Miller as just one example. He thinks unemployment benefits are unconstitutional.

newser.com/story/100972/joe-miller-jobless-benefits-unconstitutional.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser

The problem Miller and Beck and many on here have when they argue this and that value is unconstitutional is they actually overlook the Constitution.

Miller wants to be shown the enumerated power. OK.

The 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And that’s where those who advocate such nonsense as the federal government only has an extremely limited function such as the right to tax for defense purposes and we don’t have this right or that right under the Constitution are missing the boat.

As the Constitution states if we the majority of the people want certain rights not mentioned or enumerated in the Constitution, it does not mean we shall be denied these other rights. And if we want the right to have the federal govt to tax for unemployment benefits or healthcare, or what have you. And these things are retained by the people through their votes and the subsequent laws of the land, then, sorry Misters Miller and Beck and many on here. But under the Constitution so be it.

And under the common decency of those Christian values advocated by Christ for the aid of those less fortunate. So be it as well.

CMatt, I think what many of these people are saying, and saying correctly, is that the Constitution does not give these powers to the Federal Government. They are powers granted to the States. It is a fact that such things as unemployment, or any social benefit for that matter, is not among the “enumerated powers” granted to the Federal Government. It is also true that people closer to a problem usually know more about it than those who are far away from it, which is why most of the governmental powers were left to the States in the Constitution.

Remember, the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around. Yet over time, the Federal Government has usurped the rights of the States. This is the thing that many find unconstitutional.