johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I am enjoying the more peaceable portions of the recent threads about health care, entitlements, rights, etc. and although we differ, I am interested in understanding the perspective that it is the gov't's responsibility to facilitate the basic needs of those, for whatever reason, can't attain them individually (or for their families). Why is it the gov'ts responsibility? Thank you for your thoughtful and peaceful participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It isn't. :iagree: or at least it shouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffinmom Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 :iagree: It is a flawed premise to look to the government as provider and savior from harm. When you start with that notion, you will be going down a path that cannot satisfy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's one of the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. "Promoting the general welfare" is one of the prime purposes of creating a national government, and is enshrine in the preamble to our Constitution: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's one of the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. "Promoting the general welfare" is one of the prime purposes of creating a national government, and is enshrine in the preamble to our Constitution: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. Bill Thank you. You make an excellent point. My mind continues....hmmm how would you define general welfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffinmom Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Thank you. You make an excellent point. My mind continues....hmmm how would you define general welfare? and how would you define "promote"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I just finished "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, and it gives an interesting view on government, of course it was written in the fifties. But still, good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffinmom Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 not to get into the healthcare debate (I'm only mentioning it as it relates to this topic)...some would say that the current health care reform bill would NOT be "promoting the general welfare". If that principle is truly of concern, then the general welfare might be served in a better way than is currently being offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Thank you. You make an excellent point. My mind continues....hmmm how would you define general welfare? Bill beat me to the punch. As to what constitutes general welfare... I think banning high fructose corn syrup would go a long way toward promoting the general welfare of the American populace. Just kidding. Sorta, kinda. Okay, not really. Btw, turning your question around, why is it the government's responsibility to provide roads? Or is it not, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennC Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Btw, turning your question around, why is it the government's responsibility to provide roads? Or is it not, in your opinion? Roads facilitate commerce, which benefits the GOVERNMENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutor Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's one of the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. "Promoting the general welfare" is one of the prime purposes of creating a national government, and is enshrine in the preamble to our Constitution: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. Bill The general welfare clause is part of the Constitution's preamble (as you rightly pointed out). The purpose of a preamble (or introduction) is to give a quick summary of what follows in the rest of the document. Articles I-VII and the Amendments give the specifics as to how the federal government will "form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Roads facilitate commerce, which benefits the GOVERNMENT. All SARCASM aside, I'm not clear as to your point. Edited August 15, 2009 by Colleen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) All SARCASM aside, I'm not clear as to your point. . Edited August 14, 2009 by True Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Roads facilitate commerce, which benefits the GOVERNMENT. So are you saying that infrastructure (roads, bridges, railways, etc.) exist only for commerce, and ultimately, the only entity to benefit from commerce is the government? I'm not sure I follow that ..... astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Colleen, I haven't ever thought about that. My first response, admittedly without thinking through it at length is two-fold 1. It's not necessary. I actually have a few friends that have chosen to leave the roads leading to their homes unpaved in order to save on tax money. While I appreciate they're helpful, I don't see them as inherently necessary. 2. Should the people overwhelmingly want paved roads, then I would say they benefit without prejudice to anyone who chooses to travel them. Although the more I ponder, I'd say they are not necessary for quality of life or general welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Roads facilitate commerce, which benefits the GOVERNMENT. So gov't has their hand where they have benefit (true, lol, very true!). :D Joking, but not, but joking...i digress.... Commerce, however does benefit all of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 I just finished "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, and it gives an interesting view on government, of course it was written in the fifties. But still, good read. I'll look into that, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Roads facilitate commerce, which benefits the GOVERNMENT. Does not a fit and able populace/workforce also facilitate commerce, and therefore, the government? Edited August 14, 2009 by Audrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think banning high fructose corn syrup would go a long way toward promoting the general welfare of the American populace. Just kidding. Sorta, kinda. Okay, not really. I honestly feel you on this one. Still, would rather let people be educated about hfcs, then still have the freedom to ingest as they see fit (or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phathui5 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's one of the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. "Promoting the general welfare" is one of the prime purposes of creating a national government, and is enshrine in the preamble to our Constitution: I think our government takes "promoting the general welfare" WAY too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Colleen, I haven't ever thought about that. My first response, admittedly without thinking through it at length is two-fold 1. It's not necessary. I actually have a few friends that have chosen to leave the roads leading to their homes unpaved in order to save on tax money. While I appreciate they're helpful, I don't see them as inherently necessary. 2. Should the people overwhelmingly want paved roads, then I would say they benefit without prejudice to anyone who chooses to travel them. Although the more I ponder, I'd say they are not necessary for quality of life or general welfare. True, but in our litigious society, what happens when a town doesn't take care of a road, a horrible accident occurs on the road as a result of the town's lack of upkeep, and the community is sued? It happens a lot, actually--- I have a cousin who will never, ever, ever be the same because he was traveling on a country road in Oregon, one which he was not familiar with, and didn't see a stop sign because a tree branch had grown out and down and was obscuring the sign. He hit a car driven by a teenager who wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The boy died at the scene. My cousin was fine, physically. He's a complete mess psychologically. Or, consider this: You live on a road that was once paved, but has now fallen into quite a state of disrepair due to lack of upkeep. It's snowing. (and plowing snow/salting roads is a government service we could cut, right?) So one of your loved ones suddenly has an urgent need for care. You call 911 (oh! more government services-- police and EMS response!) Assuming the police/ems/ambulance government services haven't been cut already, the ambulance cannot get to your house in time because of the impassible roads. There are a lot of repercussions to just the notion of not paving/caring for roads. Scary to think about, IMHO! astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 How can you travel a road that isn't maintained? I DO live on a dirt road....and if it wasn't maintained.....there would be about a million pot holes in it....and it would have been flooded out long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 How can we draw the line in the sand, so to speak, where we allow the gov't to facilitate general welfare, yet maintain individual rights? I'm finding at the heart of many issues, this is a deep rooted problem. Where do you draw the line? and Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 How can you travel a road that isn't maintained? I DO live on a dirt road....and if it wasn't maintained.....there would be about a million pot holes in it....and it would have been flooded out long ago. Her husband uses his own machinery to maintain the road and trim back vegetation. True, but in our litigious society, what happens when a town doesn't take care of a road, a horrible accident occurs on the road as a result of the town's lack of upkeep, and the community is sued? It happens a lot, actually--- I have a cousin who will never, ever, ever be the same because he was traveling on a country road in Oregon, one which he was not familiar with, and didn't see a stop sign because a tree branch had grown out and down and was obscuring the sign. He hit a car driven by a teenager who wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The boy died at the scene. My cousin was fine, physically. He's a complete mess psychologically. Or, consider this: You live on a road that was once paved, but has now fallen into quite a state of disrepair due to lack of upkeep. It's snowing. (and plowing snow/salting roads is a government service we could cut, right?) So one of your loved ones suddenly has an urgent need for care. You call 911 (oh! more government services-- police and EMS response!) Assuming the police/ems/ambulance government services haven't been cut already, the ambulance cannot get to your house in time because of the impassible roads. There are a lot of repercussions to just the notion of not paving/caring for roads. Scary to think about, IMHO! astrid You bring up excellent points to my hardly thought out response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennC Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 All SARCASM aside, I'm not clear as to your point. I admit, I thought you were being facetious. Maybe you should watch the year of Little House on the Prairie that showed the process of getting roads west and railroads. Actually, I'm sure there have been school books that address the topic, also. It's a simple concept really. Of course, everyone benefits from commerce & roads. But the reason the government builds and maintains roads with the tax money of working Americans is because it does benefit the government. Do you disagree? Are roads not beneficial to government, IYO? is it ok to capitalize that? fwiw - I had no idea that capital letters were so offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 This website has some interesting discussion on the "general welfare" issue. I think it may be misinterpreted when it's applied to acts that benefit only certain individuals. I think what's intended is what benefits the "general public" (defense, infrastructure, etc.). One could also, remembering that the States and their rights were a big issue, interpret the phrase to mean "anything which benefits all or most of the States, without detriment to any". (Because the sentence is: 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.) I'm not completely sure it's meant to refer to individual benefits at all. I must do some more study of this interesting topic! I find these quotes enlightening: Madison: "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Wendi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I am enjoying the more peaceable portions of the recent threads about health care, entitlements, rights, etc. and although we differ, I am interested in understanding the perspective that it is the gov't's responsibility to facilitate the basic needs of those, for whatever reason, can't attain them individually (or for their families). Why is it the gov'ts responsibility? Thank you for your thoughtful and peaceful participation. It's safe to say that the vast majority of those who post here and live in the US receive their access to electricity, phone and internet through normal channels. Probably most of us are even connected to a city/county water system rather than use well water. Government-city, county, state and federal-subsidizes all of those. We don't receive the benefits for free, we pay for the benefits. We pay fees and usage charges as well as through taxes. However, we don't have to go out and figure out how to maintain the electrical grid, that is done for us. Do we have a "right" or "entitlement" to access those things? I know from past polls that only a small percentage of people here have even traveled outside of the US. How many have traveled in developing second or third countries where electricity and running water are not the norm? I have and it isn't pretty. Do you think the government (including city, county, state, federal governments in that word) should subsidize anything? Should it pay for roads, hospitals, polices forces, fire departments, the military, the electrical grid and other such infrastructure? Why is the line being drawn at access to health care? It doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 We seem to have a bit more faith in our government than you Americans do in yours, but here we think certain things are the government's responsibility because that's what we voted them in to take care of. If we don't like it, we make our gripes heard loud enough that they become election issues. Paying taxes, to us, is kind of like setting up automatic debit from your bank account so you don't have to remember which day to pay your rent each month. Anyway, bureachrats (I can never spell that right) are a good, if annoying thing. It keeps people employed... Rosie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in Austin Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Coming at this from a biblical perspective: I think we have an obligation to take care of each other. In an ideal world, that would be done on a completely voluntary basis. Well, that's not happening. So the next question for me is: What is second best? That we let people starve in the streets because individuals don't step up to help them, or that we (=the government) confiscates money and uses that to help them? I think it is the latter. Yes, there will be coercion, waste, fraud, etc. Yes, it is a violation of you as an individual to have money confiscated by the government. Yes. Yes. Yes. But I believe it is still a lesser evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 which concerns the taxing and spending powers of Congress. While the preamble does mention "general welfare" typically people are talking about the powers of Congress when they use that term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think it may be misinterpreted when it's applied to acts that benefit only certain individuals. I think what's intended is what benefits the "general public" (defense, infrastructure, etc.). I would say that it is in the common interest to have a healthy population. Someone mentioned being in places that don't have electricity and running water and that it's not pretty. I have been to places where people don't have healthcare and that's far, far scarier than not having electricity. Healthcare has become so ridiculously expensive and difficult to procure/maintain that we are running the risk of having a population that can't be productive due illness and death. I don't see affordable healthcare as benefiting on certain individuals. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I would say that it is in the common interest to have a healthy population. Someone mentioned being in places that don't have electricity and running water and that it's not pretty. I have been to places where people don't have healthcare and that's far, far scarier than not having electricity. Healthcare has become so ridiculously expensive and difficult to procure/maintain that we are running the risk of having a population that can't be productive due illness and death. I don't see affordable healthcare as benefiting on certain individuals. Tara Tara-I mentioned the water/electricity thing and I'm not in disagreement that people should have access to healthcare, just to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Well, that's not happening. The libertarians I know would say this is not happening because people's money is being "stolen" from them by the government so they don't have extra money or desire to do more. To that I say, "When in the history of humanity has there been a time that the advantaged looked after the disadvantaged without being coerced into doing so?" Think back on history and the huge divide between the wealthy and the abjectly poverty-stricken. I think there is a strong element of moral judgment of the "the poor are poor because they are morally lacking" in that type of attitude. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappypeople Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Why is the line being drawn at access to health care? It doesn't make sense to me. I think this is an excellent question. It makes no sense to me. My SIL is *rabidly* opposed to health care reform and yet she sends her kids to public schools. Using my tax dollars, btw. I don't mind, because an educated work force is important to the (ahem) general welfare of our country. Just like a healthy population benefits us all. Anyway, bureachrats (I can never spell that right) are a good, if annoying thing. It keeps people employed... That's funny :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) How can we draw the line in the sand, so to speak, where we allow the gov't to facilitate general welfare, yet maintain individual rights? I'm finding at the heart of many issues, this is a deep rooted problem. Where do you draw the line? and Why? Here is where I draw the line - if I have the right to do it, such as making the road I drive on safer, because as citizens we own the roads, then I can delegate that authority to an elected representative and give him the money to do the job. I don't have the authority to make my neighbors pay my bills, regardless of how much of a public good it is perceived to be, therefore I cannot delegate that authority to the government. It helps to remind myself that there really is no such thing as "the government" as an independent entity. They are just people I hire to do a job for me. Edited August 14, 2009 by jcooperetc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennC Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 we are running the risk of having a population that can't be productive due illness and death. Tara See I don't get this. Right now according to generally accepted stats, 90%+of Americans have health insurance - access to health care. How are we running a risk of an unhealthy "population?" And most of this is NOT provided by the government. Yes, it may be expensive for some, but there are alternatives. For instance, any one (yes we had pre-existing conditions on one son) can buy High Deductible Health Insurance. For about $1800/year I insure myself and 5 children. Dh is on his employer's HD plan, costs less than $200/mo (he is older) and employer picks this up as a benefit. Some people pay $80 for cell phones and $50 or more for TV per month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think this is an excellent question. It makes no sense to me. My SIL is *rabidly* opposed to health care reform and yet she sends her kids to public schools. Using my tax dollars, btw. I don't mind, because an educated work force is important to the (ahem) general welfare of our country. Just like a healthy population benefits us all. That's funny :001_smile: Again, I have the right to educate my children and therefore I can band together with my neighbors and hire someone to do that job for me. (or not ;)) We don't need an educated "work force". That is a progressive idea that started last century. We need an educated, thoughtful population, totally unrelated to what they will be doing to earn money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's safe to say that the vast majority of those who post here and live in the US receive their access to electricity, phone and internet through normal channels. Probably most of us are even connected to a city/county water system rather than use well water. Government-city, county, state and federal-subsidizes all of those. We don't receive the benefits for free, we pay for the benefits. We pay fees and usage charges as well as through taxes. However, we don't have to go out and figure out how to maintain the electrical grid, that is done for us. Do we have a "right" or "entitlement" to access those things? I know from past polls that only a small percentage of people here have even traveled outside of the US. How many have traveled in developing second or third countries where electricity and running water are not the norm? I have and it isn't pretty. Do you think the government (including city, county, state, federal governments in that word) should subsidize anything? Should it pay for roads, hospitals, polices forces, fire departments, the military, the electrical grid and other such infrastructure? Why is the line being drawn at access to health care? It doesn't make sense to me. Funny and kinda off topic..I recently saw a show on Nat'l Geo (I think) about India. There is a man, kind of a godfather character, who supplies cable to the slums. There are miles and miles of cable wire throughout the slums, as well as a simple hose system that goes throughout...not sayin' it's the best system, just thinking that people get their basic needs met in a variety of ways. I appreciate what you mentioned and I can only comment that I don't think phone, cable and internet are necessary and important for quality of life. I'm okay with well water, too :) I believe gov't money for infrastructure and military for national defense is appropriate, although I go back and forth about the "benefits" offered to military families (and I am a military brat). Volunteer fire dept. and hospitals would be fine with me. I ponder that health care is sometimes based on personal behavior (lifestyle choices), I know not always so please don't misunderstand me, but I think health care is something a person should have the choice in. Remembering, this thread is not about only health care, but about governments obligations and what they aught to be, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappypeople Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Think back on history and the huge divide between the wealthy and the abjectly poverty-stricken. I think there is a strong element of moral judgment of the "the poor are poor because they are morally lacking" in that type of attitude. I was watching Oprah a week or so ago and her guests were people who had been laid off and were facing difficult times financially. One guest was a woman in her 20s, recent college grad who had been laid off. Anyway, she talked about how horrified she was at the prospect of going down to the unemployment office and getting in line with "those people" (aka ignorant, lazy, poor people) But, when she actually got there, she was comforted by the fact that she saw many people who looked well-dressed and educated like her. Thank goodness for her she didn't have to be around "real" poor people. (we need a "that POV makes me want to retch" emoticon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise in Florida Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 So are you saying that infrastructure (roads, bridges, railways, etc.) exist only for commerce, and ultimately, the only entity to benefit from commerce is the government? I'm not sure I follow that ..... astrid Originally Highway Departments (roads, bridges, etc.) were funded through the taxes on gasoline. This meant the 'users' of the system funded the system. Much like funds from fishing licenses pay for maintenance of docks, stocked lakes, etc. More miles driven (more gas therefore more taxes) equaled more services used. However, the Federal Government could not resist the power of controlling the funds (personal opinion here regarding motive). The gasoline taxes were put into the general funds and the highway maintenance became a general budget item. The only reason I am adding this to the conversation was to point out that road funding was only charged to the users. In other words, Granny who didn't own a car, didn't pay for roads. (Obviously some indirect expense added to purchases from businesses that used roads.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Here is where I draw the line - if I have the right to do it, such as making the road I drive on safer, because as citizens we own the roads, then I can delegate that authority to an elected representative and give him the money to do the job. I don't have the authority to make my neighbors pay my bills, regardless of how much of a public good it is perceived to be, therefore I cannot delegate that authority to the government. It helps to remind myself that there really is no such thing as "the government" as an independent entity. They are just people I hire to do a job for me. So your ownership is tangible, whereas health care is not? Not debating, looking for further thought. Is education tangible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 , "When in the history of humanity has there been a time that the advantaged looked after the disadvantaged without being coerced into doing so?" Think back on history and the huge divide between the wealthy and the abjectly poverty-stricken. I think there is a strong element of moral judgment of the "the poor are poor because they are morally lacking" in that type of attitude. Tara There were times, but generally, your statement, in my estimation is true. During those times, however, I recall the church was the force to provide medical, food, and shelter needs for those without and they did so via donations and farming. That was the attitude. I'm not sure that is a predominant attitude today, though...at least not in my circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Originally Highway Departments (roads, bridges, etc.) were funded through the taxes on gasoline. This meant the 'users' of the system funded the system. Much like funds from fishing licenses pay for maintenance of docks, stocked lakes, etc. More miles driven (more gas therefore more taxes) equaled more services used. However, the Federal Government could not resist the power of controlling the funds (personal opinion here regarding motive). The gasoline taxes were put into the general funds and the highway maintenance became a general budget item. The only reason I am adding this to the conversation was to point out that road funding was only charged to the users. In other words, Granny who didn't own a car, didn't pay for roads. (Obviously some indirect expense added to purchases from businesses that used roads.) That's actually a very valuable addition to the conversation b/c it makes sense to tax gasoline and use the money for roads! This kind of rational budgeting brings me peace of mind as a taxpayer.Seems like simple cause and effect and make us responsible for our part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 :iagree: It is a flawed premise to look to the government as provider and savior from harm. When you start with that notion, you will be going down a path that cannot satisfy. :iagree:It is not what can the government do for you, but rather what can you do to help yourself. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they wanted government out of their lives. They wanted people to be free to achieve and provide for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise in Florida Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I asked my husband this question a few months ago. He generally prefers small government but he is for some kind of health care/insurance reform. His response was that it really isn't an open market issue right now, the large corporations (benefits), insurance companies and health care corporations do not currently operate on a level playing field. Since individuals do not have significant control of the current system, some government oversight is probably necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I asked my husband this question a few months ago. He generally prefers small government but he is for some kind of health care/insurance reform. His response was that it really isn't an open market issue right now, the large corporations (benefits), insurance companies and health care corporations do not currently operate on a level playing field. Since individuals do not have significant control of the current system, some government oversight is probably necessary. I agree with him. One of the reasons that I brought up the issue of utilities is that the utility companies use at least partially government-funded infrastructure but are private companies with a lot of government oversight. I think maybe the health care system should work something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 So your ownership is tangible, whereas health care is not? Not debating, looking for further thought. Is education tangible? I have read the sentence multiple times and still can't figure out what it means. But I am trying to correct and assign school work at the same time I am reading this so apparently I have just discovered my brain cannot hold two intelligent thoughts at once. :confused: Here is what I think you are asking - I don't think it is really about ownership at at all, but about what I have a right to do with my life and property. I have a right to seek medical treatment, any kind of treatment I choose, but I don't have a right to make other people pay for it. If a friend or family member or charity wants to help me, then fine, but no one can force them to. That is the authority we are trying to delegate to the government with this health care plan and many other government programs, I believe. I think the same thing applies to education. I have the right to educate my child and can hire someone else to do it if my time is better spent, in my opinion, on something else. It really doesn't matter if it is a community good or not; that is just an added benefit. Sure, the entire community benefits when the population is well educated but it isn't the goal or even the reason for an education. And even though it is going further and further away from this, we do own and control the education system. We hire and fire board members through elections and delegate them to choose the employees for us. Sometimes, I think, teachers and principals need to be reminded who they work for and who pays their salary. ;) My rights end, whether they are tangible, ownership rights, or more vague pursuit of happiness rights, where another persons right begin. So now you can get out the ruler and smack me over the head and tell me to go stand in the corner because that was not the question at all and I obviously was not paying attention in class :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loupelou Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Here is what I think you are asking - I don't think it is really about ownership at at all, but about what I have a right to do with my life and property. I have a right to seek medical treatment, any kind of treatment I choose, but I don't have a right to make other people pay for it. If a friend or family member or charity wants to help me, then fine, but no one can force them to. That is the authority we are trying to delegate to the government with this health care plan and many other government programs, I believe. I think the same thing applies to education. I have the right to educate my child and can hire someone else to do it if my time is better spent, in my opinion, on something else. It really doesn't matter if it is a community good or not; that is just an added benefit. Sure, the entire community benefits when the population is well educated but it isn't the goal or even the reason for an education. And even though it is going further and further away from this, we do own and control the education system. We hire and fire board members through elections and delegate them to choose the employees for us. Sometimes, I think, teachers and principals need to be reminded who they work for and who pays their salary. ;) My rights end, whether they are tangible, ownership rights, or more vague pursuit of happiness rights, where another persons right begin. So now you can get out the ruler and smack me over the head and tell me to go stand in the corner because that was not the question at all and I obviously was not paying attention in class :D :iagree:Wholeheartedly, only you said it better than I could of. I'm a jumble of thoughts over here.:001_smile: Also the words promote and oversee carry two completely different meanings and I personally feel we are heading towards the "overseer" side. Promote:to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace Oversee:to direct (work or workers); supervise; manage: He was hired to oversee the construction crews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) It isn't. As for those who mention.... education... it was better prior to state run schools (look at the language and thought processes of so many - even common men- in the early days of this country). (It far surpasses almost all of what we see today in our best & brightest.... much less our common man). The availablity was different by regions. Cost varied & much of reading/ciphering/writing was done at home by parents (often with a Bible & newspaper). The concept of unified state & federal schools was to get everyone to think alike.... eliminate community distinctions or variations.... the goal was not to get everyone truly THINKING! It is actually social experimentation.... and a socialistic concept. Get us all alike! Even poor people had free schools run by churches & even community organizations. It is a myth that most were completely illiterate... especially in the 1700s. The Quakers were excellent at running schools on a limited budget also. By the mid 1800s... the education quality was deteriorating... amazingly, that is about the same time that state schools were prevailing. Faith was removed slowly as the gov't paid for more & more. It has been a deterioration. Today, we seem to think we can't live without the gov't hosting schools. It is like the poor woman in Russia wondering where she will get her bread if the gov't doesn't provide it for her at the end of the long line! Edited August 14, 2009 by Dirtroad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts