Obama Signs NDAA

  • Thread starter Thread starter smndtupidisaftr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m against the social safety net in principle. That is, I oppose it at the federal level AND the state level. What’s my issue with it? Well a few months ago I read a great book called The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. In this book Olasky details the history of charity and aid in the United States, going all the way back to colonial times. He shows that in the past, compassion was more than just about giving money. In fact, the older view of compassion has more to do with the original intent of the word: “com” - with, and “passion” - suffering. In essence, to be compassionate was to suffer with the person that you were helping. Charity of the past involved much more personal involvement, checking in with recipients and helping them to find jobs and not only that but to convert. What I found most fascinating is the view that they held, that is, the salvation of the soul is more important than temporal concerns, such that it is better to leave people in poverty if necessary so that people will be more receptive to God and more willing to change their ways. They wanted to avoid blind giving as they felt that this would only solidify the bad habits of the impoverished. Olasky then went on to show the history of charity in the bigger cities in the 1800s, and shows that when they tried mass charity like we have now, that dependence soured and that any effective change was eliminated. Giving money does not solve poverty any more than paying a kid to eat ice cream will make him less likely to want ice cream.

If you want to understand why I oppose the modern welfare state as not only inefficient but also immoral, this is the book to read.
 
Well there’s lots of people here on CAF who support the welfare state as consistent with Catholic social teaching… See this discussion forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=632366 🙂
Are you serious? It’s ok to lock people up without due process in order to save money so we’ll have more for the poor?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against helping the poor, but this would probably hurt them disproportionately, aside from the fact that locking people up willy-nilly with no due process is not the sign of a healthy democracy in which the rights of the people are protected.
 
The social safety net is not like it is in Europe where people Milk the system… We have workfare…

People are required to work for their benefits… And the benefits aren’t umlimited… They expire at a certain time…

Trust me our social safety net is very minimal…
 
The social safety net is not like it is in Europe where people Milk the system… We have workfare…

People are required to work for their benefits… And the benefits aren’t umlimited… They expire at a certain time…

Trust me our social safety net is very minimal…
Did you read the thread? This is not about saving $$$ on defense (which btw is a proper function of the federal government), it is about the fact that it has been said that hidden in this appropriations bill is codification to detain anyone anywhere, including US citizens on US soil who is deemed to be involved in terrorism by “the administration,” whoever that may be, *and held without any sort of hearing or trial for any length of time. *

Do you think that is ok?
 
The social safety net is not like it is in Europe where people Milk the system… We have workfare…

People are required to work for their benefits… And the benefits aren’t umlimited… They expire at a certain time…

Trust me our social safety net is very minimal…
Additionally, the Federal US government is currently operating in the red. Any reduction in expenditures should, in justice, go towards reducing deficit spending, not just transferring deficit spending from one program to another.
 
The social safety net is not like it is in Europe where people Milk the system… We have workfare…

People are required to work for their benefits… And the benefits aren’t umlimited… They expire at a certain time…

Trust me our social safety net is very minimal…
Do you know how easy it is to fake a disability? Do you know how lax those requirements are (especially unemployment benefits)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

Check out how much is spent on social security and medicare. It’s a huge part of the federal budget. Very minimal? Not since FDR and LBJ had anything to say about it.
 
Do you know how easy it is to fake a disability? Do you know how lax those requirements are (especially unemployment benefits)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

Check out how much is spent on social security and medicare. It’s a huge part of the federal budget. Very minimal? Not since FDR and LBJ had anything to say about it.
Not to mention that it was recently reported that only 25% of the monies allocated actually get to those in need. The rest is burned up in admin costs, I guess.
 
I confess, all I really know about this bill is what I saw from Colbert lambasting it (half tongue-in-cheek, but also apparently with some sincerity), Obama, Congress Republicans and all; I don’t see much room for excusing anyone, try as some may on both sides to exempt their favorites. I don’t very much like the looks of it, at any rate.
And it needs to continiue to be talked about, not buried in the news or in the case of this thread, hijacked.
We owe it to pur children and grandchildren to keep this in the forefront, and have it overturned in due time.
 
And it needs to continiue to be talked about, not buried in the news or in the case of this thread, hijacked.
We owe it to pur children and grandchildren to keep this in the forefront, and have it overturned in due time.
This definitely needs to be kept front and center. Not only did the administration go unconstitutional on us (again) but Congress passed it with flying colors. Both sides are to blame on this one.
 
This definitely needs to be kept front and center. Not only did the administration go unconstitutional on us (again) but Congress passed it with flying colors. Both sides are to blame on this one.
Absolutely…this was passed with broad support from both parties.

govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-230
govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-375

It makes one sick at the entire system. Both my senators and my congressman voted in favor…none of them, and certainly not the president who signed it, can count on my support ever again.
 
In the mail today, February 2012 issue of Catholic Family News.

Front page article:

Obama Codifies Indefinite Detention for US Citizens by John Vennari

article is continued on pages 18, 19, 20 & 21.

Cannot find it on their Web page.

But on the Web page, there is an article that Virginia’s legislature is voting on a bill to prevent the state from enforcing this Federal law.

[what a mess]

gunowners.org/sa012612.htm

Thursday, 26 January 2012 21:00
Virginia House Moves to Nullify NDAA Detention of America Citizens

Virginia may be on the verge of saying “NO!” to one of the most blatant abuses of federal power in recent years.

As you know, at the end of last year, Congress passed and Barack Obama signed a defense authorization bill which contained a provision [section 1021] allowing American citizens to be arrested on American soil, detained indefinitely, tried in a military court, and deported to a Third World country for torture.

An American could be detained if he “substantially supported” an individual who engaged in a belligerent act against the U.S. or its allies, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Thus, if you were to sell a gun to a Timothy McVeigh, unaware of his intentions, you could have all of your constitutional rights summarily taken away by Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder under the terms of this new law.

But now, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall has introduced legislation to prohibit Virginia law enforcement officials from enforcing this unconstitutional language. That bill is House Bill 1160, which has already passed out of its initial subcommittee.

House Bill 1160 implicitly piggybacks on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision partially invalidating the Brady Law. That case, the Printz case, held that, under our system of federalism, a state can’t, against its will, be turned into a “go-fer” to enforce a federal law enforcement regulatory scheme.

ACTION: Please call your delegate and ask him to support House Bill 1160.

CONTACT: To identify and contact your delegate, go to conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform and enter your address in the form provided. When the results display, clicking on the “More about” link will lead you to your delegate’s e-mail address.

NOTE: using the “Send a message” link on the results page is not recommended, as that will automatically send the message to both your delegate and senator.

A pre-written letter is provided below so that you can copy-and-paste it into the e-mail message you send your delegate.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Delegate:

Virginia may be on the verge of saying “NO!” to one of the most blatant abuses of federal power in recent years.

At the end of last year, Congress passed and Barack Obama signed a defense authorization bill which contained a provision [section 1021] allowing American citizens to be arrested on American soil, detained indefinitely, tried in a military court, and deported to a Third World country for torture.

An American could be detained if he “substantially supported” an individual who engaged in a belligerent act against the U.S. or its allies, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Thus, if a person were to sell a gun to a Timothy McVeigh, unaware of his intentions, he could have all of his constitutional rights summarily taken away by Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder under the terms of this new law.

But now, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall has introduced legislation to prohibit Virginia law enforcement officials from enforcing this unconstitutional language. That bill is House Bill 1160, which is already beginning to move toward the House floor.

House Bill 1160 implicitly piggybacks on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision partially invalidating the Brady Law. That case, the Printz case, held that, under our system of federalism, a state can’t, against its will, be turned into a go-fer to enforce a federal law enforcement regulatory scheme.

Please support House Bill 1160.

Sincerely,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top