What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Luddite/technogeek ha!
____________

Janice

We talk about "classes" of people.

Yet we only speak of the poor class, the middle class, and the rich class. Of course, the definitions of these three classes vary depending on who you're in a conversation with. And sometimes those who are discussing these classes don't even realize both parties are using different definitions.

Why don't we speak about the growing "dependent" class?

Or the growing "government" class?

Making a statement such as, "What if expanding the safety net is less expensive than cutting it?" is a typical statist tactic using FLIPOLOGY (a new word I just invented to describe the science of flipping the meanings of words) as a means to fool the general public.

President Lincoln said something to the effect that as a government official, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't hope to fool all of the people all of the time.

That was 150 years ago.

Today, he might say something to the effect that in today's world of TV, Radio and Internet, the government can't fool all of the people all the time, but in a democracy that's not necessary. In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together it's easy.

Article I
Section. 8 of the US COnstitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sixty-first Congress of the United States of America, At the First Session,

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislature of three-fourths of the several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"ARTICLE XVI. 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."

Remember, the Constitution of the United States requires Congress "to promote the general welfare." With that in mind, in whatever cases that overall, it is demonstrably more cost-effective to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, (or) provide for the common defence" with public services of some sort, does not simple logic dictate that Congress must apportion spending in the most efficient way available to it?
____________

In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together it's easy.

Rupert Murdoch and Faux News comes to mind ...

...Constitution...requires Congress "to promote the general welfare."

...does not simple logic dictate...

Remember, the Constitution of the United States requires Congress "to promote the general welfare." With that in mind, in whatever cases that overall, it is demonstrably more cost-effective to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, (or) provide for the common defence" with public services of some sort, does not simple logic dictate that Congress must apportion spending in the most efficient way available to it?

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Out of curiosity, As you are a constitutional "literalist" can you please explain your interpretation of this ? The phrase "Promote the general welfare" draws a pretty wide bow.

I'm not being smart when I ask this question. I ask it from the position of an observer located many thousands of miles away who is unfamiliar with all the quirks, interpretations and court rulings that have taken place over the last 230 odd years.

T.A.

If he says intent, he will quote from The Federalist Papers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Out of curiosity, As you are a constitutional "literalist" can you please explain your interpretation of this ? The phrase "Promote the general welfare" draws a pretty wide bow.

I'm not being smart when I ask this question. I ask it from the position of an observer located many thousands of miles away who is unfamiliar with all the quirks, interpretations and court rulings that have taken place over the last 230 odd years.

T.A.

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

The Preamble of the Constitution is not "another document" Gary.

The quote was from the Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the Constitution.

...Constitution...requires Congress "to promote the general welfare."

By force, if necessary?

...does not simple logic dictate...

WHOOPS! You accidentally let it slip out. There are still many Americans who will not stand for a dictator.

I am one of them and will fight it to my dying breath.

Thanks, Gary. I couldn't tell who you meant by "someone" and Guy didn't put his excerpt from the Declaration of Independence in "quotes." Good catch.
____________