RWN Moonbats  

Friday, March 03, 2006

On this comment thread, which goes with this post over at John Hawkins', there's been some spirited discussion of the concept of what is and is not appropriate per the US Constitution.

I entered the discussion by responding to a question posed to John that basically asked who should handle "Social Welfare" programs if not the federal government. I basically said that people who believe it is importand should do this with their own money, time and efforts. I also mentioned that if state governments had the ability to do so under their own constitutions, and their voters approved, then it could be handled in that manner, though I would not personally vote that way.

I then affirmed a conservative commentor's position that the private sector also has opportunities for people to work, and put in my two cents that I believe a major problem in America today is that instead of people solving their own problems, they look to the government to solve their problems for them. "No one even bothers to even think about accomplishing something on his own," I said.

A conservative commentor then brought the Constitution into the discussion:

Also, however, remember that we (are supposed to) live in a federalist government, with power divided between the national and state governments. Our Constitution states explicitly that what is not explicitly granted to the national government, nor denied to the states, is a reserved power of the several states.

The Constitution says nothing at all about providing for the poor. Therefore, the states and the states alone reserve the power to levy a tax for their support.

by Euclidean on 2006-03-01 09:38:15
This is the strongest defense of our position that we could possibly muster. The Constitution does NOT authorize such programs for the federal government, and therefore the federal government cannot do it. So says the Tenth Amendment.

I did respond to the liberal talking point of the century, of course. You know it well - "Tax cuts cause deficits." I exposed it as the bullshit that it is, of course. But the presenter of the talking points did make one very important point.
When you get some 'real' conservatives in Congress then you'll have something.

by libliever on 2006-03-01 09:51:48
This is, of course, true, and I said so.
This is 100% absolutely dead-on correct. of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Then a liberal sarcastically said this:
I mean, isn't smaller government basically the bedrock of conservatism?

by crsrds33 on 2006-03-01 11:23:30
This touched off a long debate, ostensibly because crsrds33 wanted to know why conservatives support the President despite disagreeing with many things he has done while in office. I guess they forgot about President Clinton committing perjury while in office, something I'm sure they didn't support, yet they sought to protect him from being punished for it, therefore still supporting him. Why did they continue to support a criminal in office? Because they either agreed with other things that they believed he was doing right, or they believed that what he was tring to do in the big picture was much closer to what they believed in than the alternative - so I answered:
Yup --- and I've said it time and again.

President Bush is NOT a coservative. He's just infinitely more conservative than the alternative.

Well, it's time everyone faced it, including the liberals who try to pass the President off as a right-wing extremist. You want to see a right-wing extremist? Check out my friend The Old Sage. One of my best friends and someone I love to call the "quintissential cynic", this guy is almost off the charts. Still, everything he says and/or posts is sincerely geared towards what he believes is right, best for America, and reverent to the Founders' vision, even if it does sound like a commercial for the Libertarian Party.

President Bush is NOT conservative. We elected him because he was the only viable alternative to the kind of blatant socialism and open disregard for the Constitution we would have had if his opponent had won. We re-elected him because he proved himself a leader under duress, and we knew he would not cut and run when the chips were down. Oh, and he was also the only viable alternative to the kind of blatant socialism ...

Eventually, we will have to elect more federalists to Congress and to the White House, but until the Donks are sufficiently weakened (which is happening a lot faster than I thought it would), we will always have to throw the socialists a bone to get our guy in. Anyway, I digress ...

The debate then really became "Defenders of the Constitution vs. Socialists". I love this debate, because I always win it hands down. Those who think as I do have one of the most powerful documents ever written at our fingertips, and it's very easy to defend. We also have 100 years of failed socialism at home and abroad to point to. Of course, the socialists always have to have their little pity party.
So is your answer to the homelessness that we do nothing at all to help them?

by crthns on 2006-03-01 11:34:16
This was answered very well by JimB - "It's not the government's job." I was a little more blunt:
If by "we" you mean the federal government, then that is EXACTLY what we mean (or at least that's what I mean).

Now my favorite part. Crsrds33 said,
The government should be involved with helping the homeless. The question to be asked is to what degree should the government be involved...
Like I said, it's really easy to defend the Constitution. All you have to do is use it.
Wrong. This notion is not supported by the Constitution. Find me the Article and section or the Amendment that allows it, and we can debate from there. Until you do that, you have lost the argument. End of story.

Crsrds33 also asked me to consider a hypothetical (which I've always believed is a stupid way to make a point), and I responded to that as well.
But imagine this...
You are the father of a family, you just lost your job due to cutbacks at your plant. Where you live, jobs are few and far between. Now, how are you supposed to support yourself and your family with no income and bleak employment prospects?

Lay off the pity party, ok? There's always a way to make money, and all one must do is find it. Sometimes you have to work for less money than you want to. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and commute. Sometimes you have to tap what little savings you have.

I've personally been in this situation more times than I would like to admit, and my family still greets me at the door when I get home from work. I made it, and so can you or anyone else. If you try to say otherwise, I will tell you that you're full of sh** (and I won't censor myself).

Is it in the best interests of our government to let you starve and become homeless?

To put it bluntly, it's not our government's job to concern itself with my personal well-being. I'm not going to buy into to this notion that the federal government should be stepping into every pitiful situation that exists at any given time in this country. Get over it.

Or should you depend upon private citizens and companies to assist you and your family through this rough stretch?

by crsrds33 on 2006-03-01 12:13:28

If there are private citizens and companies that are willing to help me, great. In fact, when I was in this situation, there was a private food bank that provided my Thanksgiving dinner one year. I was very grateful to them, and it meant more to me because it came by way of the goodness of their hearts and not extortion from any taxpayers.

I don't feel any real pity for people who are jobless or homeless because I am all too aware of the fact that they have chosen that situation for themselves. Jobs are hard to come by, but they aren't impossible to come by. Finding a job is often as hard as keeping one, and those who deserve our pity seldom want it, anyway.

Crsrds33 gets his ass creamed in every argument he makes with every conservative that confronts him. I do admire his perseverance. His pity party continues (as does my response)...
No one's giving these people a blank check, but for those who deserve help to get back on their feet, I can see no reason to deny them such.

by crsrds33 on 2006-03-01 13:03:20

How about there being no legal justification for doing so?

Notice that the liberals have yet to quote a single article and/or section of the Constitution that justifies what they advocate. I try yet again to get them to do so.
Because the government represents the people of this country, private companies do not. The govt has an interest to see the homeless get off the streets, private corporations, for the most part, do not. Private citizens are concerned about themselves, the government is concerned for the country as a whole...

Show me exactly where in the Constitution this is the case, please.

Crsrds33 opens a copy of the Constitution, and responds to my previous question with this:
"How about there being no legal justification for doing so?"

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

I believe that when our government helps those in and deserving of need, they are promoting the general welfare of this country.
This is what liberals do when you ask them to show you the Article and Section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to do something. They quote you the Preamble.

I'm putting all my liberal friends on notice right now. The Preamble is a philosophical statement of what everything you are about to read in the Constitution is supposed to accomplish. Do NOT try to use it alone as justification for your socialist ponzi schemes. From now on, my response to this will simply be "A/S (Article/Section), please," and I'll leave it at that. The Preamble to the Constitution does not give the federal government carte blanche to do whatever some communist thinks promotes the "General Welfare". Get over it. Give me the actual Article and Section or just shut the fuck up.

Liberty and I stood firm in defense of the Constitution, but crsrds33 pushed our buttons, trying to get us to back any number of Washington, DC's unconstitutional programs/expenditures. He starts with the following:
RWR, it seems as though you oppose all discretionary spending by the government. Well, if that's the case, maybe you'd like to examine what your life and others would be like if the govt chose to abandon all discretionary spending.

by crsrds33 on 2006-03-01 14:50:29
I did not fall into the trap.
I do oppose all "discretionary spending", unless there is clear and specific authorization for a given expense in the Constitution. What my life would be like without it is IRRELEVANT.

We stood our ground on this, on farm subsidies, welfare, Roe v. Wade, education, runaway spending, and the DEA/War on Drugs. These people seem to think just because they blindly supported a President's every policy whim just because he was from their side, that we would do the same.

We conservatives think for ourselves. We do not let our elected officials do it for us. We elect officials not to tell us what to think or believe, but to implement what we already think or believe.

Anyway, that's where I was yesterday and that's why I was so quiet. Of course, it made pretty good material for today's post. Now of only "Liberty" could come around and ClueBat a few libs over here, he could get is HS credentials pretty easily...