question for liberals..

[loumeinhart 0]

Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus?

[Coreece 190]

like a little government help with groceries in the early 80's and college loans?

....stuff like that?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[loumeinhart 0]

A college loan a not welfare, it's a loan. Would you have starved if my parents (tax payers) had not bought you groceries?

[wmw999 2,147]

I worked for the food stamp office and child protective services in the 1970's. So I'd guess that I did not arrive here without welfare

Working there is part of why I am how I am today.

Ooh -- I forgot! I also got a (state) tuition equalization grant. I was attending a private school, and qualified. Being an independent student was great in the 70's.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I think government subsidized student loans qualify as welfare and/or stimulus. MAny people underestimate the huge impact these have on the average college student, many of whom could not attend without.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

A college loan a not welfare, it's a loan.

well, that's why I'm asking...couldn't it be called a stimulus?

Quote

Would you have starved if my parents (tax payers) had not bought you groceries?

i dunno...i was a lil kid. were the groceries only for staving people who were dying?

wtf the matter with you?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

A college loan a not welfare, it's a loan. Would you have starved if my parents (tax payers) had not bought you groceries?

I got a low interest loan for grad school through the government. It was not welfare, but it was a stimulus. (your original post said "welfare or stimulus")

As a result of that I obtained the training I needed to move up in my career, have more skills, and get a higher salary (so I earn more tax dollars back for the government)

Also, when I bought my house, I used the government's FHA loan program where first-time home buyers can get a mortgage with very little down.
That was also a stimulus: I would not have been able to afford the downpayment otherwise.

So that's one more formerly-rent paying American who became a home owner as a result of a government stimulus.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think government subsidized student loans qualify as welfare and/or stimulus. MAny people underestimate the huge impact these have on the average college student, many of whom could not attend without.

Notice how the cost of higher education was surprisingly absent from the campaign last year?

California residents used to be able to go to the UC system tuition free way back when...

The Ivy League schools have endowments in the billions...

Government intervention has contributed to certain higher costs. Of course there are other factors, but when the government pours money without recourse, there is an inflationary effect.

We will see the same thing with this next bail out plan.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus?

College grant - 100% of tuition.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

A college loan a not welfare, it's a loan. Would you have starved if my parents (tax payers) had not bought you groceries?

You also wrote "stimulus" in your OP. Trying to redefine it now

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Beachbum 0]

I don't consider myself a liberal, since I tend to agree with one party on some issues, opposite on other issues (and the split it probably much closer to 50/50 than I'd like to think LOL!!). That said ... why address this question only to "liberals"?? Are you implying that you believe nobody who associates themselves with the republican party ever partook of government handouts??

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here is your answer:
The take-home lesson is this:

SOME forms of government stimulus are good investments. They actually result in MORE revenue for the government in the long run, by helping citizens get more education or own a home.

Although SOME others may be BAD investments (such as, programs that merely perpetuate & subsidize poverty, or a poorly-run company, rather than solving the problem).

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[freeheelbillie 0]

Far too many people think that government exists to provide anything for anybody, when they ask for it.

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus?

I got here (Speaker’s Corner on the internet’s WWW) literally because of government stimulus programs - ARPA’s Intergalactic Computer Network that was expanded by the NSF. And I’m using a graphical browser directly evolved from the Mosiac browser, rather than Unix-based interface (e.g., pine, elm), that was developed by government funding in a government-funded facility/institution.

We all got _here_ as a result of government stimulus programs.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Notice how the cost of higher education was surprisingly absent from the campaign last year?

How did you come to that conclusion?

One of the two presidential candidates spoke about it regularly and featured it prominently in his platform. He cited it over and over and over and over and over again.

Another primary candidate, Sen Edwards made it a major issue. As a result he was criticized and ridiculed for it here in Speakers Corner.

Sen Clinton spoke about it as well.

There’s little evidence to support the assertion that some candidates were not speaking about the rising cost of education and the associated problems for ‘regular’ Americans as individuals and America as a whole.

Whether or not people heard or paid attention is another issue.

One could ask similar questions about the Presidential candidates’ platforms on US innovation & technological competiveness or the Presidential candidate’s platforms on US infrastructure.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[freeheelbillie 0]

Quote

Quote

Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus?

I got here (Speaker’s Corner on the internet’s WWW) literally because of government stimulus programs - ARPA’s Intergalactic Computer Network that was expanded by the NSF. And I’m using a graphical browser directly evolved from the Mosiac browser, rather than Unix-based interface (e.g., pine, elm), that was developed by government funding in a government-funded facility/institution.

We all got _here_ as a result of government stimulus programs.

/Marg

One could make a list a mile long containing technology, which was derived from military defense programs. (ie internet) US citizens...and people from across the globe benefit from this, as they sould. But, as far as I know welfare and charity are not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is because these are not functions of the federal or state governmet.

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Far too many people think that government exists to provide anything for anybody, when they ask for it.

Everybody thinks that way - it's just that what you think govt is important to provide to people may not be the identical as what I think govt is important to provide to people. It's all a matter of whose ox is getting gored - competition for limited resources in the State of Nature (e.g., see Thomas Hobbes and John Locke).

[nerdgirl 0]

In my reading of your response, you bring up two very important and substantive issues:

Quote

One could make a list a mile long containing technology, which was derived from military defense programs. (ie internet) US citizens...and people from across the globe benefit from this, as they sould.

First, government stimulus on research and development – both military and non-military – spur innovation & enable technological competitiveness.

If you and I agree that the benefit to the US population and US industry from such government stimulus programs is “a mile long” (benefit to the wider world is a normative bonus), why the opposition? (Short list of examples I’ve provided previously here.)

Quote

But, as far as I know welfare and charity are not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is because these are not functions of the federal or state governmet.

And second, Constitutionality:

“Welfare” is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution twice.

The Preamble states explicitly that the Constitution of the United States of America is established in order to “promote the general Welfare” as one of the primary causal reasons to form the govenment. The US Constitution established the government of the US. It is part of the function of federal government.

Article 1 Section 8 states “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.”

It’s hard to argue that “welfare” was not in the Constitution. What welfare meant to the Congressional founders, what welfare constitutes today, what it should or should not in the future are separate issues.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In my reading of your response, you bring up two very important and substantive issues:

Quote

One could make a list a mile long containing technology, which was derived from military defense programs. (ie internet) US citizens...and people from across the globe benefit from this, as they sould.

First, government stimulus on research and development – both military and non-military – spur innovation & enable technological competitiveness.

If you and I agree that the benefit to the US population and US industry from such government stimulus programs is “a mile long” (benefit to the wider world is a normative bonus), why the opposition? (Short list of examples I’ve provided previously here.)

Quote

But, as far as I know welfare and charity are not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is because these are not functions of the federal or state governmet.

And second, Constitutionality:

“Welfare” is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution twice.

The Preamble states explicitly that the Constitution of the United States of America is established in order to “promote the general Welfare” as one of the primary causal reasons to form the govenment. The US Constitution established the government of the US. It is part of the function of federal government.

Article 1 Section 8 states “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.”

It’s hard to argue that “welfare” was not in the Constitution. What welfare meant to the Congressional founders, what welfare constitutes today, what it should or should not in the future are separate issues.

/Marg

"Promote" is not the same as "Provide". Read a dictionary.

Article 1, Section 8 does not say the government shall provide welfare to its citizens. It does so in the context of defense. Not a tit to suck on.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Two more issues about which to tousle rhetorically:

Quote

"Promote" is not the same as "Provide". Read a dictionary.

I’m tempted to cite someone w/r/t conclusions that can be based on their tone and word choice, i.e., “I sense your mind isn't really open to discussion.”


Beyond that I agree that "provide" is not the same as "promote." From a linguistic perspective, one could argue that provide implies *less* than promote.


[Something of a Devil’s advocate argument]

“Provide” suggests money & equipment, i.e., what is delineated and no more. And furthermore, per the precision interpretation view, it must be “common defence” not individual and not specialized.

“Promote” potentially suggests much, much more. There’s an advocacy connotation to promote that provide does not have. To promote is to pro-actively help or encourage some situation to exist or flourish. One promotes a campaign or promotes world peace; one provides what are the basic necessities. Promote includes not only paying for the basics but establishing programs to generate and insure the general welfare of the citizens of the US of A.

Of course, promote also means “to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc.” One might interpret the Preamble to mean that “general welfare” should be promoted above “common defence” based on a pseudo-linguistic analysis.

[/Devil’s advocate]


I’m not aware of any historical evidence to support speculative, quasi-linguistic interpretation. Part of the strength is in the ambiquity that also enables flexibility. There are few things that are very specifically called out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

One could also argue that provide also implies more privatization, as was the historical norm at the time of crafting the Constitution.

In some areas the Framers were intentionally precise (e.g., 2-year money for the Army, ages for elected officials) and in other areas intentionally ambiguous, such as w/r/t “general welfare.”

Why? It would interesting (to me at least) to explore how historically radical the idea of a standing, professional *federal* Army was at the time (as opposed to the English tradition of universal military obligation for all able-bodied free men at the will of the King or Queen). The Framers were concerned with regard to what the States (via their elected/appointed representatives) would approve, so Army was explicitly included. What was the ability/obligation/options available to the federal government w/r/t a professional Army under the Articles of Confederation? Why was the Army limited to 2-year money? A commitment from the States –- who resisted/feared strong centralized govt, a la England and who had their own “well-regulated militias” -- to support a standing *federal* Army (as opposed to the civilian volunteer force of the Revolutionary Army) must have been radical!

Quote

Article 1, Section 8 does not say the government shall provide welfare to its citizens. It does so in the context of defense. Not a tit to suck on.

To whom are you directing that rhetoric? And specifically which parts of the stimulus bills under discussion? (Or again, an illustrative and devil's advocate style argument) The infamous ‘military-industrial’ complex? Here’s $9.3B in government stimulus, I cited earlier this week.

And still doesn’t change the fact that “welfare” is mentioned twice in the US Constitution.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,431]

>Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs,
>property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus?

Student loans, roads (allow me to get to work, allow me to get food) patent office (allows me to establish my intellectual property) FCC (allows my company to design things that work in specific frequency bands) and basic research funding (got CDMA off the ground a long time ago)

[freeheelbillie 0]

Quote

In my reading of your response, you bring up two very important and substantive issues:

Quote

One could make a list a mile long containing technology, which was derived from military defense programs. (ie internet) US citizens...and people from across the globe benefit from this, as they sould.

First, government stimulus on research and development – both military and non-military – spur innovation & enable technological competitiveness.

If you and I agree that the benefit to the US population and US industry from such government stimulus programs is “a mile long” (benefit to the wider world is a normative bonus), why the opposition? (Short list of examples I’ve provided previously here.)

Quote

But, as far as I know welfare and charity are not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is because these are not functions of the federal or state governmet.

And second, Constitutionality:

“Welfare” is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution twice.

The Preamble states explicitly that the Constitution of the United States of America is established in order to “promote the general Welfare” as one of the primary causal reasons to form the govenment. The US Constitution established the government of the US. It is part of the function of federal government.

Article 1 Section 8 states “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.”

It’s hard to argue that “welfare” was not in the Constitution. What welfare meant to the Congressional founders, what welfare constitutes today, what it should or should not in the future are separate issues.

/Marg

I think your interpolation of the term “welfare” (Article I Section 8) is misguided as it is obviously used in reference to US defense. I assume you would agree that the founding fathers were not insinuating food stamps, and a welfare check…
Welfare being the exact same thing as charity, it is NEVER mentioned. That is the duty of the individual to his neighbor. Would you not agree that government has nothing to give but what it has taken from another? I applaud your intimate knowledge of the Constitution, do you support the 1st and 2nd Amendments? Or do you support the gradual erosion in the name of “fairness”…
Millions of American’s today believe that as long as the cause is good, it’s the duty of government. They look upon government as a fountain of happiness and material goods. Our founders wrote the Constitution as well as a Bill of Rights. These separated powers, gave checks and balances to the system and contained countless “thou shalt nots” directed mainly at government itself. They knew unlike most American’s that a government who confuses rights with WANTS would lead to tyranny

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[billvon 2,431]

>I think your interpolation of the term “welfare” (Article I Section 8) is
>misguided as it is obviously used in reference to US defense.

They are explicitly listed as separate items in the preamble:

"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."

So we have a) providing for defense and b) promoting the general welfare.

They are also explicitly listed as two separate items in sec 8:

"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."

Again, two separate items listed separately.

>Welfare being the exact same thing as charity, it is NEVER mentioned.

They are not. I can contribute to the welfare of someone by insisting they go to school, go to the doctor, refuse to give them money for drugs etc. Often that is the opposite of charity.

[Muenkel 0]

Everyone has.

I'm really trying to understand the intent of your question. I assume it has to do with the current stimulus package drafted by the Democrats. Democrat does not equal liberal.

The real debate is how big of a step the current government is taking from our original form of government. We have always had some form of socialism and that has been a good thing. Government does serve a purpose for we the people. The dilemma is keeping that healthy balance of capitalism and socialism.

Our economy has hit many bumps in the road. We have always recovered. The problem is that government keeps feeling the need to get bigger and bigger whenever we hit these bumps. This is the mistake. These latest two packages make the government exponentially larger. We are entering unchartered waters without a compass. The fear is that when this is done, we will have a government that does not resemble in any way what our founding fathers created so brilliantly.

God help us all.

_________________________________________
Chris

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think your interpolation of the term “welfare” (Article I Section 8) is misguided as it is obviously used in reference to US defense.

How is it misguided? (Because an interpretation does not replicate yours does not make it misguided; it just makes it different. Perhaps you can present a historical, legal, or other argument that will convince me of yours as correct.)

And how is your interpretation obvious? On what historical basis do you make that assertion?

How is it different than the usage in the Preamble?

Quote

I assume you would agree that the founding fathers were not insinuating food stamps, and a welfare check…

Yes, I would concur that the framers were not explicit. The Constitution also says nothing about a Space Exploration program, stem cell research, oil industry subsidies, the Farm Bill, systematic signage on the interstate freeway system, nanotechnology, missile defense, thalidomide, ITAR, synthetic genomics, the internet, marijuana, demilitarization of chemical weapons, or the disposal of nuclear waste to name a few.

So which of those do we pick & choose among?

I suspect (& it's based on historical precendent) that what was prominent in the framers minds was the Elizabethan Poor Acts. Whether the framers intended "promot[ion] of general welfare" to exceed, equal, or otherwise deviate from those is beyond my knowledge of history, as well as how those ideas intersected with the causal motivations of "establish[ing] Justice" and "insure[ing] domestic Tranquility."

[Edit to add: I also suspect that the Enlightenment ideals of the time influenced what the framers intended as "general welfare" rather than factional welfare {a contemporary historical term for things that benefited the aristocracy} or individual welfare. Smith published early versions of The Theory of Moral Sentiments prior to the Constitutional Congress, which likely would also have influenced the framers view, imo. Less well known than Smith's more popular work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments promoted the idea that given man's tendency to focus on self-interest it is in society's interest to ensure the general welfare.]

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying