Mike Huckabee Article on Welfare and Govermnet Aid

[PointFiveO]

The yearly numbers were from the graphs posted.

The total number from Wikipedia.
Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doh, I was looking at a different year.

 

[PointFiveO]

Ah, the Great Depression. You do realize it was prolonged by the very government policies you claim helped don't you? Reminds me of something in recent history.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

I didn't say the policies helped the Great Depression. While some did, most of the spending really hurt the economy. But the thing economists like to ignore: people. People who go hungry, get cold, get angry, commit crimes. I am never going to advocate that spending is EVER the choice in a Capitalist economy, but that's why we don't just hire economists to run the country: the way people live must be accounted for.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I do know the difference. The idea is that helping the poor helps everyone. That is what brings it in the realm of general welfare and the reason it's even in existence.

That is one hell of a stretch. That type of reasoning could be used to justify most anything and is a greater overreach than the contemptible Wickard v. Filburn decision (by a Supreme Court which had 8 FDR appointees at the time). If it is in fact an honest interpretation, please explain for me how this was not discovered until Lyndon Johnson was in office. Up until that time, no one challenged the idea that general welfare referred to maintaining an environment conducive to people succeeding on their own with the realization that some would not. Now, please explain for my how, if that is a defensible interpretation, did no one notice it for 170 years including and especially the men who wrote it.

 

[PointFiveO]

Anyway I'm out, I really just wanted to point out that he lied and that welfare is NOT a bigger part of our budget that defense. And he's not grouping it with Social Security, the only logical explanation for his claim. If anyone can disprove this go ahead, but I think the conversation has warped so much from that that I probably won't come back to check.

I was attacking his premise, not his argument.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't say the policies helped the Great Depression. While some did, most of the spending really hurt the economy. But the thing economists like to ignore: people. People who go hungry, get cold, get angry, commit crimes. I am never going to advocate that spending is EVER the choice in a Capitalist economy, but that's why we don't just hire economists to run the country: the way people live must be accounted for.

Wait a minute. You are advocating socialist policies, yet this is only one example in this thread where you have conceded that they don't work (albeit with the excuse of mismanagement, although every time in history they have been tried, they have been 'mismanaged' into failure). This just doesn't make sense.

 

[PointFiveO]

That is one hell of a stretch. That type of reasoning could be used to justify most anything and is a greater overreach than the contemptible Wickard v. Filburn decision (by a Supreme Court which had 8 FDR appointees at the time). If it is in fact an honest interpretation, please explain for me how this was not discovered until Lyndon Johnson was in office. Up until that time, no one challenged the idea that general welfare referred to maintaining an environment conducive to people succeeding on their own with the realization that some would not. Now, please explain for my how, if that is a defensible interpretation, did no one notice it for 170 years including and especially the men who wrote it.

I agree, it is a stretch. That's why I presented it in the wording that I did. But it's one of those stretches that I think is necessary because the Constitution is not an infallible document. That's what makes me a Liberal and you a (I am just assuming, I apologize if I miss my mark) Conservative. I believe some stretches are necessary, you think there should be no elasticity. The problem is that too many people on my side try to stretch too far, and I think too many people on your side just won't stretch enough (except when it pleases them, but the inverse is true for Liberals as well).

 

[PointFiveO]

Wait a minute. You are advocating socialist policies, yet this is only one example in this thread where you have conceded that they don't work (albeit with the excuse of mismanagement, although every time in history they have been tried, they have been 'mismanaged' into failure). This just doesn't make sense.

I didn't say they don't work. I said that they don't always help a Capitalist economy. But they did work: people got jobs and kept their families alive, and just a few decades later our great country hit a Golden Era.

The difference is that I believe the economic concessions were acceptable for the trade off in human "rights".

And also if you read back, I have mentioned numerous times that Social Security and welfare are very mismanaged.

 

[Liberty1911]

If I didn't want to learn, I wouldn't be debating the topic. The thing is I don't think I'll learn anything from you because all you've shown me is that you are a hypocrite (the entrenched beliefs comment should show you that). I do believe that people cite things beyond their understanding, so I don't mind reading sources.

I've actually evolved my beliefs, so I don't think they're entrenched.

However, they have evolved to the point where I think the ONLY valid Federal expenditure, is one that is supported in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. So, in that sense, I'm "entrenched", but I think that's because I have arrived at the correct position, a place you haven't arrived at yet.

Hence your need to educate yourself further. Your intransigent attitude toward IndyDave about general vs specific welfare is an example of your unwillingness to learn anything.

Food for thought, here's a quote from Grover Cleveland about the issue in response to the Texas Seed Bill. Maybe you can learn something from him instead.

"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 steadfastly 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 countrymen can always be relied upon 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."

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree, it is a stretch. That's why I presented it in the wording that I did. But it's one of those stretches that I think is necessary because the Constitution is not an infallible document. That's what makes me a Liberal and you a (I am just assuming, I apologize if I miss my mark) Conservative. I believe some stretches are necessary, you think there should be no elasticity. The problem is that too many people on my side try to stretch too far, and I think too many people on your side just won't stretch enough (except when it pleases them, but the inverse is true for Liberals as well).

Stretching is not acceptable. I will grant you that no construct of man is perfect. If there is a problem (which I do not accept that there is) then the correct solution is to amend the Constitution. That is why there is a process for doing so. Simply ignoring it is not acceptable. If we go down that path, we may as well burn it since it holds no de facto authority, regardless of the fact that it is the de jure highest law.

 

[Turf Doctor]

I was once told that 86.72% of all figures were made up on the spot.

Oh, come on. The comment below agrees with you.

Figures don't lie, lier's figure..

 

[RockofStrength]

I didn't say they don't work. I said that they don't always help a Capitalist economy. But they did work: people got jobs and kept their families alive, and just a few decades later our great country hit a Golden Era.

The difference is that I believe the economic concessions were acceptable for the trade off in human "rights".

And also if you read back, I have mentioned numerous times that Social Security and welfare are very mismanaged.

But now I (one of the youth of this nation) am biting the bullet for that very same Golden Era, which was brought about through egregious overspending and inflation (plus some assistance from one of the greatest wars ever fought). Is the suffering of our nation now worth what was given to people way back then? If our economy grinds to an even more devastating halt as a result of the economic policies of the past that attempted to help the poor in the short term, has it really done any good? We like seeing people fed, clothed, cared for. But is it worth casting poor and rich, careful and stupid alike into an economic black hole a few generations down the line?

 

[Liberty1911]

I agree, it is a stretch. That's why I presented it in the wording that I did. But it's one of those stretches that I think is necessary because the Constitution is not an infallible document. That's what makes me a Liberal and you a (I am just assuming, I apologize if I miss my mark) Conservative. I believe some stretches are necessary, you think there should be no elasticity. The problem is that too many people on my side try to stretch too far, and I think too many people on your side just won't stretch enough (except when it pleases them, but the inverse is true for Liberals as well).

Here's your problem though, you think it should happen at the Federal level. Most of the objections I have to Federal spending would disappear if done at the State level.

And this is what I don't understand about liberals - unless their real goal is totalitarianism - why not let the states decide if they want "welfare" or anything else not enumerated in the Constitution as a Federal power? Why are liberals intent on destroying the 10th amendment?

If states could run their own programs, we could easily see what works and what doesn't.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't say they don't work. I said that they don't always help a Capitalist economy. But they did work: people got jobs and kept their families alive, and just a few decades later our great country hit a Golden Era.

The difference is that I believe the economic concessions were acceptable for the trade off in human "rights".

And also if you read back, I have mentioned numerous times that Social Security and welfare are very mismanaged.

How is it helpful to use government spending to support subsistence while harming the economy. Wouldn't it be better to simply not screw things up so those people could have jobs with a faster recovery? It is also noteworthy that Americans overall are some of the most charitable people on earth. As that goes my biggest discretionary expense is helping others, yet I have a problem with the government taking my money and giving it as it sees fit. The bottom line is that this is not a proper function of the government, and when the government is involved, the element of discernment needed to actually help people is gone, therefore those who are the most skillful at working the system are rewarded the most, often leaving those in the greatest need to fall through the cracks.

Let's look at this another way. If helping the goal rather than control through dependency is the actual goal (which in the case of the .gov, I would argue that amassing control and buying political support is the actual goal) then why is it better to take my money, feed it through an expensive bureaucracy in which a large portion of it is absorbed in overhead expenses, and give it to those most skillful at working the system, when in my own hands 100% of the money can go to helping people who actually need it, or else be given to wise and frugal organizations like the Salvation Army which offers one of the highest percentages of proceeds being applied to the cause (its executive director received less than $15K-yes, less that fifteen thousand dollars--per year plus is supplied with an apartment, as opposed to, say, the Red Cross whose executive director is receiving over $600K and has plenty of staff who aren't doing to shabby on the pay) again in preference to having a large portion of the take feeding a federal bureaucracy. The favorite excuse is that it is demeaning to make people face the terms often involved with receiving assorted private charity funds (like making an effort to better themselves). The proof is in the results.

One inescapable fundamental law of economics is that you get more of whatever you subsidize, and Johnson's vaunted 'war on poverty' proves this point quite nicely. Recent hardships on productive people notwithstanding, the existence of multigenerational welfare recipients is not uncommon. Public assistance arguably should not exist at all, and at minimum should not become a way of life not only for the original recipient but also for that person's children and grandchildren. The only thing anyone has to gain by this on the macro level is that these people become extremely controllable--after all, if they **** Uncle Sugar off, all he has to do is cut off the tap. It hasn't yet happened, but in the event of a threat to the status quo, don't think it won't happen.