I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Example?

But in general, people have to pay taxes; it’s a fact of life. Even if we got rid of welfare, social security, and medicaid, you would still be paying for something you wouldn’t agree with. I was also under the impression our taxes were the lowest they’ve been in awhile? Isn’t that what social and fiscal conservatives want? How much lower can they get?

@Blackberry -Not necessarily.Government has a purpose and it is not to take your time of life from you in order to benefit some other interest.
Freedom requires vigilance and a willingness to question government’s role in our lives outside of it’s original intent.
So when did it become ok?
August 13 approximately was “Cost of goverment Freedom Day”. The day when you are through paying,on average,all Federal,State and local taxes.That is 61.?% of all revenue created,per year,taken by government and you want to argue that it is the lowest we ever had?
Remember when the income tax was introduced it was only on the top 1%.Now,it is a regressive,burdensome,ever-expanding,Leviathon.

Entitled? I don’t think I’m entitled.

However, for our Nation to proceed in a civilized manner, IMO, we must ensure that our poorest, sickest and least educated are cared for properly while they live in a dignified manner.

@SpatzieLover -Who could argue,but why is that government’s role? It wasn’t in the past,why would it be the government’s role now?
I assume you are talking about the government

Why is it the governments role? We are the government. If we don’t like something, we go and deal with it.

It’s easy to say “I hate paying all of these taxes”. But, what would you personally like to stop funding? Public schools, public transport, roads, first responders?

What ever it is, fight it locally.

Prior to the existence of individual property rights. Human beings in groups lived under absolute monarchies for an extended period (going back to water dictatorships along the Nile). The idea of individual right to property, as an inalienable right, is relatively new. Paying taxes to your local lord was common prior to the idea that you owned the land you farmed; it was assumed you farmed his land.

For Americans, the most applicable answer would be with the Declaration of Independence. The intent was clearly to take the property of the King and his deeded representatives and transfer it to the American people.

@SpatzieLover -You’re mixing Federal and State levels.
Personally,on a Federal level,they should be concerned with the three basic functions.Legislative,Courts/Police,Defense.
As far as local concerns,they should remain just that.Localized and those within the community deem what is necessary,not some faceless beaurocrat.
Back to the original question, when did it become ok to take from Peter to pay Paul?
Entitlements,where does it stop?

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought -Well said,but since the Declaration,why do we accept ever-increasing encroachments on our time of life and loss of freedom through entitelments,taxes and ever-increasing regulation?
Whether theft or taxes,why do we allow it?

Envy.

@lucillelucillelucille No, I’m not. Change begins at the local level. Things will not change at the Federal level unless we make it clear at the local level that we are budget aware.

We’ve always borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. Things won’t change unless laws are created to stop others from spending our money.

Again, what things would you not pay for? NASA, Military, Prisons…

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard -Excellent answer! Not many could sum it up that succinctly.
You have restored my faith in humanity!
You rock!:))

@SpatzieLover -That is a solipsistic point of view.It hasn’t always been that way.
There was a law created.It is called the Constitution of the United States.
For the first time in human history,a government system was created whose sole purpose was to uphold the rights of the individual over the State.
Again,government’s three legitimate functions of legistlative,courts/police and defense fall no where within the current entitlement,Peter to pay Paul mindset.

Many of the same people who wrote the declaration, participated in drafting of the constitution:

This is from the preamble, which established the goals of this wealth transfer:
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

These founders assumed elected government would almost always be just, being made of the people. However, some folks felt the new federal government would always push for:
ever-increasing encroachments on our time of life…loss of freedom through entitelments,taxes and ever-increasing regulation?

Remember, initially, there was no bill of rights. The founders found it difficult to think of themselves as ever being the type of persons who would do that to the citizens when they settled in and started ruling the country. So eventually, they crafted the bill of rights, which includes, in the fifth amendment, the following:

No Person…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So when I think about current wealth transfers, from a “why do I put up with it” point of view, I am thinking about whether they are hitting the goals of the preamble, and are being done lawfully with due process of law as directed by the fifth amendment. Then I vote.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought -:))

Why do people feel entitled to live in our society and make use of community resources without ever having to contribute themselves?

Seriously, are you actually looking for an answer, or do you just want to yell at everyone who disagrees with you how they’re wrong and you’re right?

Democracy is one way for free peoples to choose their political functionaries. The problem is, the person with the weirdest idea, has the same power in their vote as the person with the best idea. Soon enough, in a Democracy, politicians (who give a shit about nothing at all except their own power, perks and priviledges) realize that they can garner votes by promising gifts to their patrons. Then, they discover that they can CREATE patrons by appealing to their jealousy and envy. The best way to do that is to promise to take from the people who have earned what everybody wants, and give it to voting supporters who can not or will not earn it themselves. If you can do that for a generation or two, people begin to believe that it is just the way it is.
And at that point, you get what you described.
Jesus’s teachings in the Bible don’t hurt the cause either. Neither does the notion that “Society” is a continuation of evolution beyond the individual. If people believe that bullshit, then they can only assume that the individual exists to serve the collective.
This is the time in which we live.
If it makes you feel better, I have taught my children to resist this notion. They and many of their friends, are doing just that. Assuming I am still here, I can’t wait until their generation gets a hold on the reins.

If we expect our government to do anything for us at all, then they need money and it has to come from somewhere. We pay, they provide us with services – isn’t that how all services work?

Taking from those who can afford to give allows the government to help those who can’t. For example, people who have health problems that aren’t their “fault” but that prevent them from being able to work and earn a living. They might need very expensive operations that they can’t afford themselves. Do these people deserve to go without any help?

@Aethelflaed -No one is yelling.You are putting the cart before the horse.
Do you seriously think that these so called “community resources” should have evolved into what is present today?
Do you think it is the role of government to provide that which is beyond it’s mandate subject to the whims of whatever power it presently serves?
Or,do you think government should be held to it’s original mandate?
Entitlement or government designed to ensure individual liberty?

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard
Best answer so far.

@josie -In our Constitutionally Limited Republic,your children’s rights should remain secure.
Fortunately,we are not a Democracy where your children’s rights can be stripped by the stroke of a pen.
:)

@lucillelucillelucille Look at your language. Do I “seriously” think something, suggesting that no sane, rational person could possibly hold this belief. The “whims”, a way to invalidate different views. Your view is phrased in a glorious, heroic, totally rational way while the opposing side comes off as maniacs. I’m not actually trying to debate this particular issue with you, I’m trying to point out how you come across as in no way actually open to hearing the other side, to finding answers, to doing anything other than ranting.

@Mariah -No one here would deny anyone their being benevolent,but again,benevolence is not the role of government and should not be expected to be so.
In our generous society,I am very confident those you describe would have ample access to such benevolence.
It should not be the government’s role to deny a people it’s benevolence.

@Aethelflaed to interject…
@lucillelucillelucille knows I hold very different views than her and was very polite and supportive of my answers while I stuck to answering her question. I do not feel yelled at.

We just differ on the scope of what providing for the general welfare looks like.

@lucillelucillelucille Well, you’re right about that. So how do I get back in your good graces?

@lucillelucillelucille Where would that “benevolence” come from if not from the government?

@Mariah The last place benevolence would originate would be from an emotion-less corruptable organization like government. You are young, but certainly not that naive. Are you?

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought And I’m glad she reacted to your post that way. But both her OP and the following comment to me come across differently.

@josie When I need a surgery, I don’t need anyone’s good will, I need help paying.
Insurance companies can refuse to cover me if I have a lapse in coverage by calling my condition “preexisting.” What options do I have then, unless a government program is in place to keep insurance companies in line, or to cover me in the event that no insurance companies will?
Please, I am not naive. I’ve already had to go through a lifetime’s worth of shit so please don’t condescend to me.

@Aethelflaed What language?? “seriously”?? LOL

Actually I got two very good answers here.;)

@Mariah-It would have been as it had been in the past before government had attempted to assume this role.
As far as pre-existing conditions go,don’t think I am ignornant of this as I have lived this scenario for a good,long time.
Life aint easy and there are no guarantees.

@Mariah
I am not condescending to you and you know it. I am sorry if you need surgery. I hope you get it. And I may be contributing to it by my contributions to the charities that I like.
The question is not about you. The question is why do people think they are entitled to other peoples property. Nothing more. So why do they feel that way?

Life aint easy and there are no guarantees

Sure there are @lucillelucillelucille Death & Taxes. ;P

@lucillelucillelucille And how was it in the past? What did people in the situation I described do then? (Honestly asking; I don’t know)

I never for an instant thought that this was a subject you’re ignorant of, Lucy.

@josie I am well aware this question isn’t about me; I talked of my situation to highlight a situation in which government programs are extremely beneficial for the betterment of society. A situation that makes paying a few taxes worth it.

@Mariah In the “old” country, people died in the poor house. Our system here is certainly better.

@josie-I want you to clone yourself,enslave him so as to pay for all my future medical expenses.
Outside of that,drop in once in awhile for coffee and a ham sandwich.LOL!

@Mariah -Family,community,church and specific charitable organizations that are now discouraged from assuming these roles in favor of a Federal,centralized view.

@SpatzieLover -It took a Constitutional Ammendment for the first….as for the second? well… ;)

@lucillelucillelucille That’d be nice, but there is just no way that I’m going to be able to raise the ~$90,000 that was required for my surgeries just going door to door. Plus I believe that these services should be available to everybody, not just people with big families, people who are well-connected in their communities, or the religious.

@SpatzieLover I agree.

@Mariah Your statement assumes a great deal,mostly towards the negative and it is understandable to have this POV especially since government has assumed these roles.
Your premise that these “services” should be available is predicated upon others being willing to provide these services at prices dictated by someone other than themselves which is more akin to Totalitarian rule than it is to a Constitutionally Limited government.

Call it what you want, I’d rather live in a country where the sick aren’t just thrown to the dogs, no matter what negative titles you choose to give such a country. If that’s what Totalitarianism is then I guess I want to live in a Totalitarian government. It’s fine that you feel differently; I can agree to disagree on this.

@Mariah No one would be thrown to the dogs and the Dickesian picture you wish to paint is not shared by myself nor is it warranted based on America’s history of benevolence.

I’m gonna talk about my situation again, if that bothers anyone or makes them believe that I think this question is all about me then they can just scroll on by.~

If it weren’t for the Universal Health Care Bill and if I just happened to be born a few years earlier, I’d be, for lack of a better word, fucked. I am lucky to be young enough to still be under my parents’ insurance policy, because if I weren’t I’d be in severe debt right now. This is because I have been in no state to hold down a job recently, which means no insurance of my own, which means never getting my ulcerative colitis covered under insurance ever again. I have cost insurance companies over $300,000 in the last three years alone (that is a conservative estimate).

My neighbors have been extremely supportive, “benevolent,” yes, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been approached on the street by people wishing me well, but no one has offered to pay for my very expensive procedure and I can guarantee you that no one ever will. A system based on people volunteering to pay doesn’t work; that is why nothing important relies on donations alone.

I can’t imagine that you truly believe that there are no sick people out there in really awful situations struggling to make ends meet.

The premise of this question proposes that individual property rights are paramount to society’s rights. But individual property rights are a social construct, and it is through our collective societal structure that we as US citizens guarantee certain property rights. Therefore the premise of this question is wrong.

Society has determined that certain goals are for the benefit of all and those goals need to be paid for on as equitable method as possible. At the local level, cities and counties have easements on property that allow for roads and utilities to be installed. Because we all benefit from an educated populace, we pay taxes for schools. Because we want fire protection, we pay for fire departments (except in Texas).

Your individual property rights are not superior to all other rights. It was a very conservative Supreme Court that declared cities have the right to exercise eminent domain proceedings to take property and give it to another.

@lucillelucillelucille Your statement these services at prices dictated by someone other than themselves which is more akin to Totalitarian rule is actually Society dictating fair and equitable pricing instead of rapacious pricing on people who are ill. I think that is one of societies highest callings. Totalitarian rule does not protect individuals.

@Mariah -Sorry you feel that way.Again,you paint a very Dickensian view of this country and it’s people.
As for myself,I paid cash for my recent medical procedures and my health insurance (which I also paid for)did not cover it.This question was not intended to be about someone’s medical; problems but I will give you a clue as to what I deal with at the present time.
I am a type 1 diabetic.That means I take insulin,buy strips for my glucometer to check my sugar levels.I also have retinopathy.That has the potential to blind me down the road.Also add the cataracts to both my eyes and I am looking at (pun intended) a shitload of problems down the line regarding not only medical bills,but my ability to make art,which is how I pay for things.
Then there is the yearly mammogram where they always have to do a biopsy on the lumps they find.That costs too and I cover it.
Then there is the muliple sclerosis I was diagnosed with 2 years ago.The neurologist put me on a medication that caused some bad side effects.I got this medication at no cost through the drug company.I recently threw all this medication out (over $10,000 worth) after I had a procedure done in which I had to travel cross country to get.I paid for that too.
In California while waiting to see the doctor for my procedure, I had occasion to speak with the rest of the patients waiting as well….all of which were from the Socialized Medical Utopia of Canada.They had to come to the United States to have this procedure performed because in Canada,under their Socialist style system of medicine,this procedure is illegal.
Not unlike most cutting edge medicine,which you will not find under that rationed system they have in Canada.
My point is,there is always a way.Government is not the answer.
Sorry about your condition.We all have our problems but I certainly don’t expect anyone else to be responsible for my problems.
There is always a way.
I don’t bitch about my problems.I do something about them.

@zenvelo-I have a question for you.
What is your basic most fundamental right,without which you have no other rights?
I’ll wait for your answer.

@lucillelucillelucille C’mon Lucille, you don’t really believe there is always a way, do you? Always? You can’t really think that the government is that bad, right?

@Blackberry- I don’t think the government is bad while it adheres to Constitutional principles,
Hell,yes,I believe there is always a way.Without hope and striving to achieve your goals,nothing will ever happen.
;)

@lucillelucillelucille Liberty as a citizen of society.

@zenvelo-Your understanding of rights is appalling.
Your basic,most fundamental right is the right to your own life, ie:life=property.Your life is your property.No one else’s.
As such,this property (your life) is your only means of implementing your life,since you must sustain your life by your own effort this is man’s only means of existence.Any man who does not have his own life as his property is a slave.
Liberty (the right you feel is number one) is only achievable by the efforts of those willing to risk their fundamental right and that is their life.

@lucillelucillelucille Really, what is so pessimistic and unrealistic about what I wrote? That I don’t think my neighbors will dole out tens of thousands of dollars just out of kindness? Next time your neighbor does that for you, let me know. I’d be thrilled to find out that I’m wrong about this.

I hope you didn’t for an instant think that I am undermining your considerable challenges.

You weren’t clear about how you got the money to pay for your procedure with cash, so I will assume you simply had savings. That’s great for you – what about the people who don’t have that kind of money? Not everybody is in a position to pay $10,000 out of pocket, you know. Particularly the very ill who may not be able to work due to their conditions (it’s fortunate that you’re an artist, as it’s not a very physically demanding job and you can do it as long as your illness doesn’t affect your fine motor skills and eyesight).

It’s unfortunate that you view the sick’s use of insurance money and government programs as making other people responsible for their problems. Except for in cases where the illness is a direct result of lifestyle, the sick should not be held financially or morally accountable for having those problems because they’re not their fault. I think that these innocent people who are thrown into difficult situations that they did not ask for should be able to have a doable game plan, rather than being told, okay, you have to pay enormous amounts of money if you want to have a shot at the kind of life that everyone else gets for free purely by chance, and if you can’t afford that, then tough luck, you have to sit in misery for the rest of your life.

I can accept that we simply have fundamentally different views on this, but I think the sick have enough shit to put up with when we’re not expecting them to come up with exorbitant amounts of cash just to get the meds or procedures they need, and I think including programs to help them out makes life more fair and doable for these people. And I don’t think asking for help means a person is any less strong or capable.

And I think people should be allowed to bitch however much they please, because life is just really damn hard sometimes.

Charity was around in Dickensian England, but that didn’t prevent debtors’ prisons, workhouses, and the poor starving to death. The majority of Americans realize that if we shred the safety net we’ve built over the past 80 years and let private charity do all the heavy lifting of caring for the poor and the handicapped (mentally or physically), we will slide right back to things as they were at the onset of the Great Depression, or as the were when Dickens wrote his compelling novel, A Christmas Carol and Tiny Tim will be in danger of starving again, even though his father is working. God only help the millions who are now out of work.

Most of us realize that avoiding that kind of a society is in our mutual best interest, and thus those of us who can afford to should collectively support preventing that sort of society from returning. But the call of “I’ve got mine, screw you!” is a seductive one to those who have never lived in the society it produces. It works fine for a tiny percentage who have the connections, the native intelligence, or the breaks. But for 99% of the population, it leads to conditions we find in today’s banana republics.

@ETpro Our state is so broke that we can longer afford to bury the poor and indigent citizens of our once great state! The nerve of those poor people exercising their Constitutional right to die!!

What property has been seized, from whom or by whom?

@ETpro I was trying to say something like that but something got in my eye and had to get up from this desk to tend to it. its still in there and watering like crazy. I hate this.

@Mariah Yeah, The shame of it all is the more fortunate among us talk a good game but they have to be forced to help the “others” because if left to the honor system they aren’t going to do squat. A real human shame. Going to the church is a mine field. You gotta go there to “get in” with them for help, as if they have the ability to handle things like this. What if I don’t want to go to church? So the church gets subsidies to do what the govt. is doing. That will just create a middle man where there is yet one more cog in the wheel for corruption to take hold.

The whole truth is nobody wants to acknowledge there are hurting people right here in the richest place on Earth. If they don’t see them, they don’t need to help them. It’s that easy.

@Cruiser I hear you and I feel that same pain. Let me remind all that we not only had a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton administration, we had the largest budget surplus in history. We were paying down the national debt again for the first time since Ronald Reagan took office and tripled it in his two terms. We were on track to eliminate the national debt in 10 years. QED, te national debt should have been nearing zero at the end of the next two terms of presidency.

Then we fell for the Bush “Free Money For All” appeal. Bush slashed taxes for everyone, but the reality is nearly all of his 2001 tax cut went to the wealthy. This was just two months before 9/11 happened. The responsible thing to have done after 9/11 would be to address the American people and tell them that we had to rescind or delay those tax cuts because we had been attacked and needed to go to war. Never before in US history did we cut taxes to fund a war effort.

Then in 2003 Bush cut taxes yet again, almost exclusively for the wealthy, just before taking us intoto a second war, this one a war of choice in Iraq. Instead of closing in on paying off the national debt in his 8 years, he doubled it. And the true gist of this question is, “Why shouldn’t we cut taxes even more.”

You live in a country with a population of over 300 million people. And yet, you somehow expect every single person to live above the poverty line? And if they are poor, this must always be a direct result of their own actions?

I’m sorry, but in a society that large, there will always be a great number of people who need help to keep from going under. Some have bad luck, some have a bad family history, some are taken advantage of by others. A lot of these people will be children – would you call them lazy or envious?

So what do you do? Hope enough people are charitable enough, consistently, to make sure these people have a decent quality of life? That can’t work, can it? Not when so many Americans label any money given to help them as “entitlements”.

@ETpro Clinton benefitted from virtually no armed conflicts to have to pay for and was able to pay down the debt incurred by Bush Sr.‘s relatively brief desert storm campaign. . Just imagine if GW and now Obama didn’t have these billions of dollars a day in Constitutionally guaranteed military expenses to contend with what kind of budget cash flow we would have? The surplus would be mind blowing. Peter is Constitutionally obligated to take from Paul to pay for these God-Damn wars.

There was a nice article yesterday about the men who refused to fight on religious reasons were shaked down to pay their fair share of expenses for the Revolutionary War. Peter has been in Paul’s pockets since day one.

@lucillelucillelucille Life does not equal property. Where did you get that idea? The US is pretty evolved as far as property rights, but it is not a paramount right. The recognition of property is a societal agreement. In many societies there is no private property.

In US History the right to private property has been severely restricted at times: Native Americans, indentured servants, minors, women, slaves, all have been restricted at one time or another.

@zenvelo
The Constitution is crystal clear about life and personal property…

Natural Rights:

The classic definition of “natural rights” are “life, liberty, and property”, but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of “personhood”, not “citizenship”. These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:

(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one’s opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one’s religion.

(10) To be secure in one’s person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one’s livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

(The 5th Ammendment to the Constitution clarifies it more…)

Fifth Amendment – Rights of Persons

No person shall…[snip] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

@lucillelucillelucille Thanks. Please note the Constitution (which is our societal construct) delineates life separately from property. And the hierarchy you provided has property well down the list, and allows for property to be seized under due process.

My response to your original question was Liberty, because I assumed Life was not the issue at hand. Next time I will list Life first, Liberty second.

To answer your question as simply as I can, it’s not so much that people believe that they have “a right to your property” (other than thieves, that is, who steal it outright without thought or regard for “rights”). The taking and redistributing is done indirectly by government. That’s what it’s for, after all.

As government is established and grows there needs to be a submission of the citizens to the needs and wants of the government, or it simply won’t survive. Therefore, government protects itself very well to ensure that it will survive, and we submit.

We form governments, as the Preamble to the Constitution says, “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”. I suppose that other countries justify their governments in more or less the same way, even if not so explicitly, and even if they never mention “liberty”. (Which is really not quite apt in any case, since once you have formed a government you are no longer liberated from it.)

Reasonable people will differ about the limits and meanings of each of those terms, so we hold elections to determine who will best represent what we want them to mean. Reasonable people also agree with most of the claims above: we don’t want people dying in the streets, starving and looting, suffering all manner of preventable (or curable) illness and in misery of any kind, if we can help it.

And there’s the rub. When you form a government among 300,000,000 people from the richest nation the world has ever seen, you can form a collective that has the power to do a lot of good. It also has the power to do a lot of bad, too, but I’m trying to avoid that for now.

So the representatives of that government attempt to do all of the “good” that they can, using other people’s money. (This is another place where reasonable people differ about what “good” is better than other “good”, or if “good” as defined by some is “bad” as defined by others, and which of those groups has more elective power.)

We often hear claims from elected representatives and others who work for and with them that various regulations and services that they’ve decided to implement and pay for – generally at huge cost when it’s a service that applies to the whole aforementioned nation – that “if it saves only one life then it will have been ‘worth it’”.

Well, that ain’t necessarily so.

To name one example (without naming names), if a person has a debilitating illness that can be treated successfully (or even just palliatively, to remove the pain) for a certain dollar amount, and if the government has that money, then why not apply that cure or remedy for that person? Who wouldn’t do that if he could? Certainly a parent would, and many do, and go bankrupt because of it. But we don’t bankrupt ourselves for “other people’s problems”. If you’re spending other people’s money, though, and your job depends to some extent on spending that money, then you’re incentivized beyond simple humanity to spend that money: It can get you re-elected!

But what if the cure costs 100 times the amount we thought it would? What if it costs 10,000 times as much? Is it really “worth it” to attempt to heal and cure every ill without regard to cost?

Some reasonable people think… no, it’s not. It’s too bad that we can’t have everything (or cure every ill), but we simply can’t. It’s not that “we should do nothing collectively” – not many reasonable people believe that. It’s just that we can’t do “everything”. Dickens has nothing to do with it.

That was the simple answer.

@CWOTUS An even simpler answer is we have come a long way baby. Our Founding Fathers had it pretty much figured out and how and why it has become the complete opposite of what they mapped out is fodder for another discussion….

James Madison, in discussing this Act before Congress identified a fundamental principal concerning the power delegated to Congress to lay and collect taxes:

”...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be
such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be
oppressive to our constituents.”

The Act went on to imposed taxes, not on Congress’ constituents, but on specific “goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States”, and not one dime was raised under the Act by internal taxation! Internal taxes were frowned upon by the Founders, especially when a national revenue could be had by requiring foreigners to pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil!

@Cruiser

Yeah, “duties” as taxes on manufactured goods are a common mechanism for developing countries to “protect” native industry against foreign competition. But that policy was worse than a direct income tax, I think. Duties are a common way for Congress to attempt to support, subsidize or reward a certain constituency (manufacturers) at the expense of others (consumers of manufactured goods, indirectly through the higher prices paid for imported goods).

Yes, such a policy “supports jobs”, but only “favored” jobs – the “specific goods, wares and merchandise” mentioned in the Act (and every similar one since then), and apparently jobs in industries that couldn’t make it on their own. I oppose those forms of taxation.

@zenvelo -Where did I get the idea that one’s life is one’s property and as such man’s basic most fundamental right??
Oh…let’s see…let’s start with Aristotle, Blackstone, Voltaire, Locke, Cato etc. The greatest minds and those minds which were responsible for the renaissance of man and the premise of freedom and liberty and how we arrive at such.
Epistemologically speaking,nothing exists without life.
There is property that you have gained by the execution of your own life and that is the property which government continually attempts to claim.
Make no mistake,your life is your property.

As to that which you mentioned regarding the Supreme Court’s role of property dissolution in favor of the state and eminent domain?
I would have you consider these thoughts: “You seem… to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”~ Thomas Jefferson. 1820

@CWOTUS -The Founders did not create a government amongst 300,000,000 of the richest people the world has ever seen.
They create a government that would not infringe upon it’s people and therefore leave them free to become the richest people the world has ever seen.
Providing for the general welfare does not mean to create a welfare state, but merely to create the conditions whereby men can thrive, be he the poorest of his brethren, no less free.
This creates a mentality where men can enjoy the best life has to offer without the need for compulsion or coercive government.
Thank you for answering .
I appreciate a reasoned response such as yours without the need others feel to make these questions personal. ;)
The cost of freedom is vigilance.

@ETpro Notice Dickensian denotes the poor in England under a monarchy and not a Constitutionally Limited Republic with Capitalism as it’s economic base. The term Dickensian is used to describe a society which doesn’t enjoy the economic freedoms and social upwards mobility enjoyed by the citizens of this Constitutionally Limited Republic.
Today’s poor are not yesterday’s poor and will not be tomorrow’s. It is ever-changing and you cannot legislate equality.
That is a Pollyanna view of life and a Utopia that will never exist.

Now, just as an overview of the so called poorest of Americans, Check this out it’s quite enlightening.

@dappled_leaves -It’s interesting, I haven’t taken the positions you have assigned for me.
I do not expect everyone to live above the poverty line. There will always be the poor in ANY society and the poor in this society,(USA) are the richest poor in the world.
Without government interference and assuming the role of Mother Nurture, those you speak of as poor, through no fault of their own, had a social safety net as I explained earlier. All this was done on a volunteer philanthropic basis, as it should be.
Quit trying to micromanage everyone’s lives.
You can’t guarantee equality (as it regards to economic standing) nor legislate it.
All men are created equal but no man is.
Care to answer the original question now? Can you do it without turning it into an interview?

@Mariah Are you incapable of answering my question without making it about yourself and the supposed problems of others?
Does your envy go that deep that you cannot think of this question outside of your own personal need?
The lives of others are NOT yours to dispose of as you see fit, for whatever purpose or for whatever immediate need outside of our Constitutional construct.
It simply boils down to this: Where did you get the idea that you can claim any percentage of my life as your own to do with what you wish?
Today it is health-care, housing, food, education,etc. Tomorrow it will be some other unearned commodity or whim.

What would you know about being an artist in my situation and it not being physically demanding?
You know nothing of what it takes to be an artist in my situation or the situations of those you wish to protect or help.
You assume a great deal at my and their expense.
Life is hard sometimes???Based on what you have written,this must be something you just recently discovered??

From the beginning of time, man has had a hard life and has learned to deal with it (for the most part) gracefully.
Just because someone is sick and has been dealt a raw deal does not give them the right to lay claim to someone else’s property so as to gentle their own condition.
It is interesting that your Egalitarianism is limited to those whom you feel are worthy. So you would pick and choose based on some moral criteria that you alone or some death panel decides has the access to your Solomon-like benevolence? I am sure they will be happy to know they’re in such good hands.
Again, quite a Dickensian portrait you paint.

“Today it is health-care, housing, food, education,etc. Tomorrow it will be some other unearned commodity or whim.”

You call those commodities or whims? I call them necessities.Necessary for the good of us all.

People who get help from their fellow citizens aren’t living that great of a life. It’s just getting by. It’s amazing how influential the corporations and super rich have persuaded the successful middle class into demonizing those who are not in the middle class or who are at the bottom edge of it. They are allowing themselves to be shills for the jet setters and CEO’s. This allows the uber -greedy to stay safely out of that conflict and they don’t get their hands dirty. So they set up the fight between the less fortunate and the upper middle class and sit back and pop the corn. The upper middle class has allowed themselves to be convinced that poor people are their enemy. The rich are winning and have been winning and they are screwing us all. Right now capitalism is only working for them, they have the political power to pretty much get their way even if the net result is the ever widening income gap between them and the rest of us. They are ok with that. Are you?

@augustlan -All of these commodities require someone else’s sanction to be achieved or an action taken in order to achieve them.These cannot be coerced.You have a right to achieve these so called necessities,but…
no one can be forced to provide them to you. therefore it is something that is traded as a commodity.
Health insurance specifically and the act of medical care must be agreed upon by both parties.
No one can be forced to give you insurance or provide the care without their permission.
Again,a commodity.

@woodcutter Careful….your class envy is showing ;)

It’s sad – pitiable, really – that so many in this once-great nation have come to believe that if a thing is necessary for survival then they must obviously have “a right to have that”. Obviously, they think, if it’s required for survival then it has to be furnished “by right” because of the Constitution’s premise and promise to value the sovereignty of citizens.

So not only food, water, shelter – the absolute sine qua non of human existence – but also education, health care, support of elders, even higher education will soon be considered something that people have “a right” to have provided, because “it’s needed in today’s society, after all”.

It’s funny that the Founders overlooked such obvious “rights” when they put together the rules and framework to begin our nation’s government. After all, food, water and shelter have been needed by humans since the dawn of time – these certainly aren’t new issues. And the construction and arrangement of the government, with differing election cycles for the two houses of Congress and the Executive, checks and balances among the government functions, unelected Supreme Court and clearly delineated powers – the genius of the document argues strongly against a claim that such obvious “rights” might have been simply forgotten.

No. The fact is that “human needs” do not equate to “rights”. Just because you need food to survive does not mean that you have a right to what’s on my table. Just because you need shelter does not obligate me to build it for you, or to heat it. Just because you live to an age at which you decide you no longer need to be productive and require an income to maintain a certain style of living does not obligate my children – and theirs – to provide it for you.

We used to understand that as a nation; people have rights to their lives and the products of their lives – their property – and a certain freedom from a strictly limited government. As we grow the government in order to provide more and more “rights” for citizens, which they feel incapable or simply unwilling to provide for themselves, then we reduce our freedom from that Leviathan. As we reach a critical mass of voters – those who actually vote, anyway – and candidates to appeal to them, all sharing this mindset, and if we really do get to a point where fewer than 50% of those in this country earn incomes that can be and will be taxed to provide for a “poor” or “disabled” or “elderly” or “civil servant” population, then there will be no more reason to refrain from increasing our grocery list of “needs as rights”. Why not have everything that the “haves” have, and right now? After all, it’s our right – and we can vote for it, simple as that.

…promote the general welfare…

@CWOTUS There seems to be a general misconception on this whole thread that people are demanding the property be taken from one person and given to themselves.

The programs that are being denigrated are society’s agreement on investment in human capital in order for us all to have a better life, a healthier workforce, an educated society. These have been gradually agreed to through our representatives, promoted by both parties, over the course of many decades.

Sure, we can say no one gets a public education. And then we end up with an illiterate society that is unable to work in modern society. We can deny healthcare for those who can’t afford it, and those of us who are healthier will see our insurance rates drop and costs of the aged disappear. Clean water will go back to what it was in the 60’s, air quality will decline.

But as your money and property remain yours and you enjoy the fruits of your labor, your overall wealth will decline because the national wealth will evaporate from lack of investment in a workforce. And soon there will be no consumers for the fruit of your labor.

So in my opinion, Society (as in We the People) has agreed to and developed these programs for the good of all.

@zenvelo there also seems to be a general misconception that libertarians and conservatives want to simply “do away with” the things that we currently look to government to provide. There is absolutely no reason why we have to provide these things “through government”. That has been viewed until recently as a “best path” and a convenience. I maintain that this is no longer the case: government is not the best funding vehicle, and it is certainly not “convenient” – for payers, providers or recipients.

When the United States did not have “free public education” we had greater rates of literacy. As far as I know we have never “denied healthcare” for those who are in urgent need – and I’m not even advocating that we do that – but when “everything is covered by others” then it’s quite amazing how unhealthy we are all of a sudden. (And that includes misuse of “emergency medicine” to treat minor ailments.)

Clean water and air don’t depend on “government” provision. It’s mine owners, factory owners, farmers and others who provide their own pollution control devices and processes who do that.

We were a wealthier nation when we recognized that “what’s mine is mine”, and before we replaced that with “what’s yours is negotiable”.

We were a far, far wealthier country when we decided to take money from the well off and give it to the returning WWII veterans for school and low interest loans in the form of the GI Bill. We experienced the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

That large wealth redistribution was the reason we were the wealthy country you now miss.

@CWOTUS -Anytime anyone has ever said to me that they have a “right” to health insurance or any other commodity, I say to them that they obviously don’t understand what a right is or you would not claim a commodity as a right.
After all,by definition,a right is an action which requires no sanction.If enough people understood the definition of a right,our country would still be on the right track.I believe the founders never conceived of a day when Americans would lose the meaning of such a simple concept.
Nice to talk to you . :)
and your response to @zenvelo was beautiful.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought it didn’t hurt a bit that we had one of the only advanced economies in the world that hadn’t been bombed to the ground.

@CWOTUS Agreed.

Oh, uh, wow, first off, thanks for making this personal. Please note that I have not said an unkind word against you in this thread. My arguments have been aimed only at your arguments, not at you, which is how proper debate is held. Can we please keep our arguments about ideas and not about people? Thanks.

I think it’s fairly common to draw on one’s own experiences, sorry if that makes me selfish or something. I used my situation as an example of a situation in which government programs are beneficial, as I already stated.

I pay taxes just like you do. I’m making that sacrifice too, it’s not like I’m only taking and not giving. I do this willingly because I happen to believe that people in situations similar to mine deserve to get the help they need, and I’m willing to give up a percentage of my income to make that happen. I believe in sacrifice for the greater good. That’s it. Can you please just accept that this is my opinion? I accept that your opinion is different.

I’m sorry that I made assumptions about your life. In my mind, I was making a comparison to, say, a construction worker, who couldn’t possibly work if he were very ill. An artist is more likely to be able to work while ill, but of course it is still very difficult.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I only recently discovered that life is hard because my life has been very hard for a long time.

Where did I say that benefits should only be given to the “worthy??” I believe that everyone deserves help when they need it. I don’t know where you got that idea.

Anyway, I am leaving this thread because it is getting personal and it’s making me upset. So you “win,” if that’s what you wanted, I don’t know or care at this point.

@Mariah-Don’t try back pedaling now when you made it personal from the get go.
You’ve made it clear that you believe in sacrificing others to achieve what you feel is necessary,regardless of the rights of others.Don’t try claiming you are motivated by some benevolence and concern for the well-being of others.Your answer was about you from the start.
Opinions are fine.They’re great,but that doesn’t answer my question,does it?
Since you cannot answer except by making it personal and offering an opinion,how about telling me when it was that you began to feel entitled to the lives of others?
Again,you do alot of assuming about others and I have tried to stop you from making it about me and my ability to work as an artist.
As for your comments of worthiness to receive benefits,read your words ” Except for in cases where the illness is a direct result of lifestyle….” In that statement you are picking and choosing who is and who is not worthy.
Again,you made it personal.

I have not made any personal attacks in this thread. If you think I have, then you need to reread my responses. I have challenged your arguments, not your character, and I wish you would extend the same courtesy to me.

I am an example of somebody who benefits. I only used the example of me because I know the details of my situation and I don’t know the details of other people’s situations. I assure you, I do wish for people besides me to have these benefits. I don’t know why it is hard for you to understand that I care about people besides myself, and I don’t know how to prove it to you, but I do.

I already apologized for mentioning your work. I didn’t mean anything by it besides that I assumed (and this is an example of assumptions making an ass out of me) that being an artist was one of the less physically demanding careers, and therefore one of the better careers for an ill person to have.

I believe that all sick people should be able to get help. I only included that mention of “except for…” because I assumed you’d come back with some argument about how it might be their fault that they’re sick in the first place and that other people shouldn’t have to cover their “mistakes.” Perhaps I assumed wrong yet again. But I believe that all sick people should be able to get help.

Anyway, I’m sorry I got into this debate at all because I truly like and respect you, Lucille, and it hurts to read what you’re saying to me. I already said I don’t want to argue with you anymore.

GA’s @CWOTUS.

@Mariah You just can’t help it,can ya? ;)

I’m still not sure WHY people believe they are entitled to someone else’s property. The only thing I have gotten out of this thread is THAT they believe they are.
Who do they think they are?

How many people on fluther now, here, really are affected by the little poor people getting a small pittance so they can have a place to live, with heat? Or are able to get script drugs so they don’t die? My guess is non of us, unless we have any 250k earners among us. Non of us are affected personally, so those who feel their sovereignty is being compromised are fighting somebody else’s fight, using their talking points. That’s what I call dedication.

We, as a society, (or at least the majority of “we”) make decisions on what we consider best for the common welfare of us all (going back to that whole ”…promote the general welfare…” thing). We all pay into that, whether we like it or not. There a a ton of things I’d rather not give my tax dollars towards, but that’s the way it is. The last things I would choose not to contribute to are the very things that make life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness possible in the first damn place.

@woodcutter -It is not not an argument to attack the intelligence of others or question their motivations.That is an ad-hominem attack.
It is a principled question to which you have added nothing.

@augustlan We are not a Democracy.This is not a Pluracy.We are a Representative Republic that is governed by Constitutional Law.
You want to change fundamentally the Constitution? Then have a Constitutional convention,pass your resolution and send it off to the states to be ratified.
Don’ try to lecture me,or anyone else here about what you think the mob would like to do.

So you are in the 250k club?

@woodcutter -So it matters to you what class someone may be in as to whether they can hold principles? Must one announce their position with the caveat of their economic status? Your class envy is showing.Pull your skirt down

No not at all. What I’m seeing from you about this is pretty much fake outrage, is all. You seem aggravated with people here and have taken this to the level of personal attacks and you know what…I’m not even going to flag that last quip of yours because I have faith you will.

@woodcutter If you believe it to be fake outrage,you are viewing this through your own biased prism.I am not outraged and don’t make this about me.May I remind you,that you sir,were the one who asked what was my level of economic standing.A bit personal,don’t you think?
You were the one who implied personal motives in your last post,just as you are attempting to infer them now.
If you have no real postion,or sustantive comments to bring to the original question,I’d appreciate your future lack of interest. :)

Time to stop being such a hypocrite @lucillelucillelucille In a recent post you bragged about throwing out over $10,000 worth of MS medicine that you deemed useless to your cause. You got these same meds for free…why? Because obviously you could not afford them otherwise. So how can you with a clear conscious continue to promote this thread when you are one of these people who expect that the people/taxpayers/corporations that have the money support you who according to you should have gone to a church to seek benevolent support for your disease instead of sponging off a big pharma corporation that simply adds in their R&D expense for experimental drugs into the cost of the aspirin, BP Meds and Viagra I have to buy with my hard earned money to live my happy life??

@lucillelucillelucille You won’t see me here on this one again and, I think the collective has learned a lot about you from all this. Are you ok?

@Cruiser- Anyone may apply to the pharmaceutical company in question.I asked for help.I received help.This was a private decision of the pharma corp and one which obviously benefits them as well.
I was a case study and I was aware of the dangers going in.There is nothing hypocritical about asking for help and I am certainly not deterring people from seeking help.Quite the contrary.I encourage it.Just don’t make the Federal government the exclusive repository for private need.
As for your meds,I’d thank you to not divulge. XD

@woodcutter -I’m sure the collective will recover

@lucillelucillelucille It most certainly is as they are a for profit corporation and indeed they invested those profits WE ALL PAID FOR to help you receive your medicines. This was not some benevolent church fund raiser, it was a corporate for profit endeavor and the very system you are attacking with both barrels blazing. Time for you to make a choice as to which system works best for you or for your ideals. Can’t have your cake and bitch about it too!

@Cruiser You don’t seem to get it,do you?
I am pro-capitalism.
This entire thread has been my postion against Socialism.
I entered in to a private contract with corporation to mutual benefit,which is the essence of free market.
No one forced this corporation’s hand. Again,this was experimental with implied risk on both parties.This was no government program.The fact of the matter is,my actions could be looked at as an act of benevolence for future consumers of this drug Without people like me,future beneficiaries couldn’t be.
So,to the question…any substantive ideas or do you wish to continue trying to make this about me?
I am not pissing myself in a wheelchair yet,Cruiser.I can take it

No @lucillelucillelucille YOU don’t get it. You got a FREE RIDE paid for from other peoples private property and are failing to grasp this reality! Who do you think paid for this?? Do you have the slightest clue where and how a corporation gets money to blow on R&D stuff you benefitted from?? TAX BREAKS!!! Where and how did they get tax breaks?? From their Lobbyists who made damn sure the politicians voted for these policies and contracts they then get to benefit from to ensure they can sell more meds for more profits!! Once again where do they get this money from??? PROFITS from drugs they sell to us the tax paying consumer OR to this Health Care Machine we have allowed to dictate how and where our tax dollars are spent or paid. So no dear….your free ride was directly paid for by both pre-tax Health Coverage Dollars and after tax dollars out of pocket dollars and there is no way out of this one!!

@Cruiser That is simply bunk.
It was a private contract between myself and the pharma company which is not located in the United States,by the way! LMAO!
Do you understand the term,private contract?Do you know what that means?
As for the rest of the nonsense…tax breaks from lobbyists? That is a hoot.
You must reallly have a sense of entitlement to have lost control like this.
Anything to the original question?Or are you just going to keep trying to make this about me??

@lucillelucillelucille Private contract or not that money to pay for it comes from their profits that they make off the meds they sell to taxpayers. This is a direct subsidy of your test program of which you tossed over $10,000 of discarded meds in the garbage. That money had to come form somewhere and most certainly did not come from a St. Alphonso’s pancake breakfast fundraiser! Somehow you think people like you who have a direct need think it should only benefit you when you need it and not anyone else and then have the nerve to inject Socialism precepts into the argument when it supports you ideals that are in direct conflict with your own inherent needs. IMO not a laughing matter.

@Cruiser Admit it,You’re wrong.The corporation isn’t even in the United States.Don’t you get it?Their customers are citizens from all over he world not taxpayers .These are corps doing business with private citizens.
No matter how you try to torture the logic,it doesn’t fly here.
None of what you said pertains to the question and you continually try to make this about me.
You obviously don’t understand what happens in the course of clinical trials,either.
The nature of my situation was that medications delivered could not be returned and this was the instruction of the provider and my doctor.In fact,you answered a question I asked here on fluther about it.
You do keep making this personal and will not address the original question.
…still not pissing myself in that wheelchair

Sausage

Still not pissing in a wheelchair ;)

@lucillelucillelucille keep championing for benevolent resources only for the indigent and you just might be! ;)

@Cruiser-Once again,you had to get personal.The question I asked is at the top of the page
Clinical trials are mutually beneficial until you find out a medication is not a good thing and even then,other people still benefit from that experiment.
It was not even close to a “free ride” for me.
Do you really believe that it did not come at a cost to me? How dare you.

@lucillelucillelucille I don’t see that any constitutional amendment is needed here. The constitution already contains a General Welfare clause, “which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote or provide for the general welfare of the people”. Reasonable people may disagree about what ideas should be included under “General Welfare”. What the majority of us think it means seems to be different than what you think it means. That doesn’t make any of us evil people, freeloaders, or incredibly stupid.

You know, I think what’s really bothering me about this question is the way you’ve framed it in as negative a light as possible. It’s like Sarah Palin referring to “death panels” in the healthcare bill, and that’s what reasonable people then have to respond to. It’s patently ridiculous. I don’t think any of us “feel entitled to other people’s property”. But we do expect everyone to pay their fair share of the price a civilization such as ours costs.

I truly don’t understand your righteous indignation.

@lucillelucillelucille I never once suggested that your medicines did not come at a cost to you as I am sure they have. Your clinical trial although free to you are not free to the company who gave you those meds and they build those expenses into the price of other meds they sell that someone has to pay for and absorb these costs. Maybe they even got a Gov grant to cover these costs. So in reality you must feel entitled to my private property to help support this pharmaceutical company you got your freebies from. Why is that @lucillelucillelucille??

@Cruiser Suggested??You flat out told me it was a freebie! “You got a FREE RIDE paid for from other people’s private property and are failing to grasp this reality!”
The meds I received were not at no cost to me.I paid,alright…;)
If you think clinical trials are of no benefit to the drug suppliers and docs,think again.
I entered into a mutually beneficial contract.They got to experiment with me and I was able to take a med that my neurologist thought would help me.Mutually beneficial.NOT FREE I paid a price.
I find it interesting that you choose to ignore this to further your argument,not to mention making it personal.Until you get a grasp on how the trials I am involved in are mutually “benefical”,then there is no point discussing this any further.I have been clear in my explanation.
You completely lack understanding of how it works.
By the way,I am well aware of what and why you are doing this

@lucillelucillelucille Then for the record what percent of the $10,000 worth of meds you threw out did you pay for. What percent of the thousands of dollars of the cost of the meds you took during that free clinical trial did you pay for?? Whatever that small amount may be, the larger cost was absorbed by this pharm company who passed in on to it’s consumers.

What you have done is completely illustrate for the collective just how taking from Peter mutually benefits Paul! ;)

@Cruiser-Unbelievable.I cannot explain it to you and will just let it go.

@lucillelucillelucille I also want to apologize for using your clinical trial as an example here…I should have presented my points in a less personal manner.

@Cruiser

What @lucillelucillelucille was describing to you was a contract. That’s all. On her side (apparently, not being privy to the details here) she put up a body that met specifications required by the manufacturer to test the drug, and they put up the drugs (and, presumably, other routine checkups and minimal care required to maintain her as a viable test subject). This is no different, really, from an employer – employee relationship, even if the terms of “employment” are different and the type of exchange not measured strictly in dollars and cents.

@CWOTUS -That is exactly it and the contract was over when my neurologist told me to not take that drug anymore because of the adverse reaction I had to it.
As for disposing of that medication? You cannot recycle meds! Holy shit.
It was not a waste to throw away as @Cruiser would have you believe as it harmed me and others who have taken it.
I will not take a drug because I don’t want to be “wasteful”.
The drug company gleaned info from me.Believe that.

@CWOTUS Doesn’t matter that it was a contract or not. There were costs not born by @lucillelucillelucille and those costs were passed down stream to the consumer either in higher prices of their other meds or Tax breaks from the Gov for their R&D.

And I don’t have a problem with that at all!! I am damn proud @lucillelucillelucille is able to get help she cannot afford on her own…..it is what makes this country great.

@Cruiser you’re still failing to recognize that in this contract, @lucillelucillelucille doesn’t have “to bear any costs”. She put up the body required as a test subject and took the meds – and the risks that went with them. The drug company had to have this testing carried out as part of their clinical trials. Whether @lucillelucillelucille had gotten better (or worse!) as a result of the trial is “an externality”. Obviously, everyone hopes for a “positive externality” from this test. What matters is that the drug is tested and data collected on efficacy, side effects and treatment modality. That’s what the drug company had to have.

It’s not so different, really, from aviation pioneers who test piloted planes of dubious manufacture and design. They were paid pretty well to do something that many of them might have done for free – and it killed a lot of them. But the flights had to be made to prove the design and serviceability of the aircraft. It’s totally disingenuous to say in such a case that “the company rewarded the pilot with an aircraft worth millions of dollars” in exchange for his joyride. Yeah, the pilot may have been thrilled to fly the plane, no doubt. But he risked his life in doing so, and advanced the company’s cause in necessary ways.

@CWOTUS Thank you for explaining it in a gentler way than I could have

@CWOTUS You are venturing into territory I have a lot of background in and I assure you these costs of this contract are HUGE and in most instances are covered by Gov grants. And in the end it is mutually beneficial to the development of new drugs and therapies and for the subjects like @lucillelucillelucille who otherwise could not afford them…BUT it is an expense that ultimately we the consumer/tax payer absorbs.

@Cruiser

No doubt. I know that the costs for developing new drugs run into the hundred of millions of dollars. (I don’t know the extent of government grants in funding the trials; it’s an expense that I would strongly disagree with, however. “We” should not be making these expenditures via government / political selection. But that’s beside the point here.)

My point was that it’s not always beneficial to the recipients to perform these trials. We always hope it is, of course. But when you see (on nearly every drug sold) that one of the potential side effects is “death”, then you have to realize how that was determined, and think of those people who got that limited “benefit” from the drug they were testing.

The value of any drug in development can be almost whatever the drug company wants to assign to it: Is it $100,000,000 per dose, for the first dose produced from a routine development cycle? Or is it $0, since no matter how much it cost to develop, they can’t sell it at the CVS, so it has no “value” to their bottom line?

No one could “afford” such drugs, as either the producer or consumer. But the drug companies also can’t afford to sell them – at any price – without the test flights, either.

And of course consumers ultimately pay the cost. Has anyone quibbled with that? I still disagree that government should fund the cost. We could even have a thoughtful debate about the ‘necessity’ of the FDA. We rarely get to see its “success” in delaying drugs, such as Thalidomide, which it did not approve for use in this country. But we almost never get to hear of all of the cases where FDA disapproval, or glacially slow approval of effective treatments also harms people, because you can’t really report very well on what hasn’t happened. That’s beside the point of this thread, however.)

@woodcutter

You made a comment earlier in the thread (if you’re still following) about how “only those in the 250K club” had to worry about this topic. You were very denigrating in your attack on “the little people” who defend the principle that we shouldn’t be taking larger and larger slices of their wealth away from them. It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize why I took such offense to that, but I’ve finally got it. Embarrassingly long, because of the way you slight those who defend this principle as either naïve, or worse, as paid shills for “the rich”. And I make the same defense that @lucillelucillelucille makes, and don’t consider myself either naïve or paid off. Also “embarrassing”, because the principle was so obvious, and I failed to grasp it at once.

Should we consider soldiers who die on foreign battlefields “paid shills”, or simply naïve dolts who had no idea that they were doing the bidding of others, with no say in the matter? Because the fact is that even though I’m not trying to elevate myself to the level of battlefield heroes with my words, the actions are at least related. Soldiers fight our wars, among many reasons, “to defend our way of life”. Part of that “way of life” is the idea that people can have and hold their own property. At least, that has been a principle of American life throughout most of mine. I feel no qualms about defending the principle that rich people should be equally safe in holding their fortunes as any other citizen.

I don’t care how much money Bill Gates has, or Warren Buffet, either. What’s theirs is theirs. No one needs to pay me off to defend that principle, and I don’t feel like an idiot for saying it, either. As far as I know they made their money legally and legitimately, and as far as I’m concerned they are welcome to dispose of it as they wish, not as you wish or anyone else who has plans that the owners of the fortune are not part of.

If you want to attach the fortunes of a man such as Robert Mugabe, to name an egregious example of someone whose fortune is certainly a result of thievery, then I’m all for it. Bill Gates never took a nickel from me that I wasn’t happy to pay him, nor Warren Buffet or any other American billionaire I know of, either.

Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game. For Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to be billionaires doesn’t detract from anyone else’s personal wealth at all, doesn’t prevent me from being a billionaire, millionaire, or “just comfortable” – or you, either. In fact it adds to our national well-being, even if we don’t – and in fact, especially if we don’t – take their wealth away from them beyond what we – and they – consider to be “reasonable” taxation.

@CWOTUS -:)

What is the reference to the 250K club?
Does that mean that certain people are entitled to expect more from their existence than they can provide by their own initiative?
And so they can expect to make up the difference by taking from the 250K club?
And those in the 250K club must in turn shut the fuck up and start providing?
Is that what I am reading here?
Just curious.

You missed a modded comment – which I won’t attempt to repeat verbatim – but the upshot was that “little people” sticking up for “fat cats” are paying to carry their water. In other words, those of us not in the $250,000 / year salary club are naïve and gullible to be using their talking points “against our own interest”.

Well, I intend to make it to the 250K club.
As long as there is such a club, I have a chance to join it.
If it disappears, I’m stuck with no place to go.

@augustlan -The word “Welfare” appears twice in the constitution. Once in the Preamble and again in art1-sec8. The Preamble says ”(provide) for the common defense, (promote) the general welfare,... ” Note, it specifically says “Promote” and NOT “Provide” as it does with common defense. It does this to differentiate between that which is mandated as a proper function, and that which is to be seen as a common goal through proper legislation.
Btw constitutional scholars have always refered to art1 sec8 as the “Commerce Clause” and not the “General Welfare Clause” as it is usually referred to by the Left and if I am not mistaken that misnomer’s epistemological first usage can be traced back to John Dewey, the father of modern day Pragmatism.
For an understanding of what the Founders meant when referring to “General Welfare” the examples are many but I happen to have access to a Noah Websters from 1828 which states:
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

There should be no ambiguity as to what is meant by “Promote the General Welfare of the United States” As James Madison himself expains in Federalist 41 in a letter to the people of Ney York in explination of what General Welfare doesn’t mean: “General Welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction”. In other words, no such intention is inferred.~James Madison Fed. 41:

I strongly take issue with your inference that because we don’t “think” alike that you feel it necessary to point out this difference in thought doesn’t,( as you put it,) “make any of us evil people, freeloaders, or incredibly stupid.” That is patently outrageous and beyond the pale. I have never said or thought anything of the kind and shows an effort on your part to paint me in a bad light.

The question I originally asked: “Why do people feel entitled to other peoples property?” Is a philosophical question that has been asked since man first lost his kill to another tribe and is certainly not negatively framed. The question was framed as simply as possible with no intention as to motivation. That was assumed by the reader who brought their own bias and assumptions as to it’s meaning.

As for “righteous indignation”? A spirited defense of principle is always warranted and should never be misconstrued as “righteous indignation” but merely a measured response.

@lucillelucillelucille The question you originally asked: “Why do people feel entitled to other peoples property?” was philosophical indeed but hypocritical and skillfully hidden from the fact that you yourself has mutually benefitted from the benevolence of big pharma companies like Teva Pharmaceutical who not only got hundreds of millions in grants to conduct this research you thought you might benefit from to the millions of dollars they gave back in campaign donations to support the politicians who greased their wheels to support the marginal at best performance of your MS wonder drug.

Needless to say in the end we both lose out…your trial was marginal at best and so was our taxable investment in this endeavor! I do hope in the future you are afforded better options at Peter’s expense! ;)

@lucillelucillelucille I was including you when I said “That doesn’t make any of us evil people, freeloaders, or incredibly stupid.” I wasn’t accusing you (or at least, not only you) of implying such things. It’s just the tone this conversation has taken, on both sides. But yes, I do feel like you’re being righteously indignant in your responses. You’ve been quite harsh to a few people in this thread, and I think that goes a bit beyond a spirited defense. And yes, I know you are not the only one.

Anyway, my main points were:

I’m assuming a commonality here that may not exist…Do we agree that a certain amount of taxes are the price we pay to live in our society?

A) You and I (and many others) disagree on what it means to “promote general welfare”. You, (and many others) have set the ‘general welfare’ bar lower than I (and many others) have. Many (like me) feel the government should do more to promote the general welfare, while many (like you) feel the government should do less. It’s a reasonable disagreement, or at least it can be.

B) I (and people like me) don’t want your property (money) to directly benefit ourselves. We’re paying too, you know. We just want everyone to pay fairly into our system. For the common good.

Which brings us back to point A. We disagree on what our system should be in the first place. On what should be done (and therefore has to be paid for) for the common good.

@Cruiser “Hypocritical”? The obvious difference that you wish to evade is that I never demanded an entitlement from anyone. I agreed to participate knowing full well the risks this unproven Drug could pose to my immediate and future health! My life was the capital I brought to this potentially DEADLY “benevolence”(as you call it) being offered! That is the distinction, so don’t try that shell game with me.
I know what you are doing and *why you are trying to do it*

@lucillelucillelucille you’ll be arguing with yourself now. @Cruiser left the tidepool

@SpatzieLover I am well aware of that as we have talked daily for the past 2 years. I know.

Great for you. So are you doing this on here for yourself then?!

@SpatzieLover My reasons are private.

They look public to me

@SpatzieLover—Far from it. XD You are not privvy to my reasons.
Sounds like you want to argue. YOU will be arguing to yourself from here on out because my reasons for posting my retort are my own.MYOB

I beg to differ with a few opinions here. If @lucillelucillelucille is risking her health, aren’t the stakes higher than you could put into dollar terms?

@Adirondackwannabe -Thanks,A….I was wondering….what dollar amount is a human life going for these days? ;)

@lucillelucillelucille I was thinking if someone offered me $10 grand, but I only get 24 hrs to live or zip and I get my normal life, that $10 grand looks pretty crappy.

@Adirondackwannabe -I can’t argue with that logic.;)
That is a brilliantly made point

@augustlan -Including me? I’m not sure how I can take your clarification because the sentence in question states: ” What the majority of (us) think it means seems to be different than what (you) think it means. That doesn’t make any of (us) evil people, freeloaders, or incredibly stupid.”
The distinction was made by not including me in the “majority”(termed as “us”) and further stating the “us”(which you exclude me from) as not being “evil people, freeloaders, or incredibly stupid”. This logical progression assigns me as the antagonist or persona-non-grata who’s (as you’ve put it) “implying” these aspersions. No reasonable person of any marginal intelligence could have interpreted your posting any other way.

As for ”righteous-indignation” in my responses to ad-hominem attacks designed to evade a simply crafted, innocuous philosophical question? Who wouldn’t be Justifiably Outraged? Are you saying I don’t have the right to be?

I hesitate to address points A)B) because, again, they don’t address my original question but at the risk of being polite..

As to A) Please don’t assign for me the position of “government should do less” but rather government, should take James Madison’s advice and, do that which (I paraphrase) ”enables it’s citizens the freedom to achieve life’s blessings” by not providing governments blessings.

As to B) The “common good” has become too elastic as regards to “general welfare” as predicted by Madison in Federalist 41.

@lucillelucillelucille This is clearly a philosophicacal difference of opinions. you’re quoting Madison. That’s fairly conservative. This place tends to be a much more liberal site.

@Adirondackwannabe ;)

@lucillelucillelucille I genuinely did mean “any of us” to include ALL of us. For real. Perhaps I could have worded it better… something like “Conservatives/libertarians and liberals disagree. That doesn’t make any of us…” I’m sorry I worded it poorly.

As for the rest, I’m not interested in arguing with you about it. I’m just telling you how you’re coming across.

@augustlan—Thanks

I don’t mind sharing.

Holy shit, people. This really makes me wonder as to the validity of the “personal reasons” excuse for leaving the site… Just sayin.

ANYWAY… there’s a big difference between helping your fellow man and letting your fellow man walk all over your ass after raping your wallet. I know I’m not the only person who gets upset over the idea of drug addicts still receiving welfare, and illegal immigrants receiving healthcare that legal citizens are paying for. BUT, there’s a lot more to the “help your fellow Americans” way of life than that, and it’s not all black and white.

@WillWorkForChocolate I’m not naive enough to claim that those sorts of abuses of the system never happen. They do. But they are rare and the exception that proves the rule. One or two anecdotes about real-world examples of deadbeats abusing the social safety net cannot be applied to 320,000,000 people without any supporting evidence that all the rest are the same. Typically, the “everyman examples” are carefully selected by hand from millions of examples of the system doing exactly what it was designed to do, and then trotted out to make the case that we should let all the poor and downtrodden starve or die for want of medical care so we can have more money to fund even more breaks for the most fortunate among us. If that’s class warfare, it is pretty clear to me what class is taking the most casualties and who started the shooting.

Relevant quote of the day: “This is not class warfare, it’s math . . . I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher is class warfare.” – Obama

@augustlan Well said. We started giving the so called “job creators” enormous tax breaks 3 decades ago, dropping the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. Over that entire time, the trend has been for the jobs to fly offshore. I think we have waited long enough to know that trickle-down Voodoo Economics is never going to work. It’s time to go back to what did work, not with some huge tax increase on the wealthiest taxpayers, but letting the rates which worked so well under Clinton come back into play by simply doing nothing, and letting the sunset clause in Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy expore.

GA…..so sad they are limited.

@ETpro The reason jobs went overseas is not because “job creators” got enormous tax breaks 3 decades ago and not some woo woo trend trend that caused these jobs to go off shore….it is because of failed and shortsighted trade policies that were the easy fix to the problems of the day then and kicked the can of that day’s problems down the road for the next administration to contend with. Today’s trade policies that are in place allow for a 5:1 imbalance in foreign goods imported versus US goods exported. That is the real crime…not marginal income tax rates. Without US jobs there is no income tax.

Which administration started the outsourcing?

@Cruiser I largely agree with your analysis of why jobs went offshore, but the topic I was addressing was whether tax breaks for the “job creators” will suddenly bring them back. Can I assume, since you correctly point out that tax policy had little to do with jobs flying to India and China, you also agree that further tax cuts for the “job creators” will do nothing to bring them back? Putting America to work by tax cuts for the rich is just another “woo woo trend trend” that has been tried now for 30 years and failed miserably.

@Dutchess_III Outsourcing got underway with a full head of steam under Ronald Reagan.

@ETpro I was focusing on failed trade policies and not on the rally cry of tax breaks for the rich. Time to get real here.

@Cruiser Are you suggesting that slashing taxes further when we are already running a deficit of $1.6 trillion a year is getting real? When our bridges and school buildings are crumbling and US construction workers sit without jobs, would slashing investment in public works magically put millions to work? Who needs to get real?

I agree the trade deals have been unfair. They gave American consumers cheap goods, but no income with which to buy them. I’d at least like to see the Democrats stop playing weasel games with trade. Instead of claiming they oppose the new free-for-them-costly-for-USA trade agreements unless Washington gives workers put out of work in the US by the new agreements free “magic” money to make up for now job, they should grow a spine for once and simply say this is bad policy for America and we aren’t voting for it under ANY circumstance.

@ETpro Privatize the bridges into tollways and you will see sound structures and do not argue this point as I have dealt directly with Illinois DOT and the Illinois Tollway authority for the last 16 years and know all too well the ins and outs of the bureaucracy of both sides of the story. Public works is again a State controlled and funded enterprise and although Fed programs can solve immediate needs such as clean water remediation’s it only kicks the can down the road for the next administration to pay for. Time to solve problems NOW with money we either have or find a way to do it without passing the burden to future generations.

Schools are a whole separate issue and IMO best handled at the state level supported by property tax that is then managed by the people of those states and not the Feds.

@Cruiser It will also cost you $500 in tolls to cross the nation. It will add the toll charges to every commodity you buy that travels across the roadways. There are some things that government legitimately should do, and others best left to private enterprise. You will NOT save money by privatizing our natioal infrastructure. It will cost you, and cost you dearly.

@ETpro Please cite your source for this number you showcase and I will show an equal amount of ways to take the scenic route and not pay a damn dime!

@Cruiser No, If it isn;t apparent to you what tolls cost, come up to New England and cruise on our many toll roads for 100 miles or so. Then do the math in your own head to mulitply that out over 3000 miles of countryside.

It is you who proposes drastically restructuring the entire United States. THe burden of proof is with you. YOU prove your idea will save me money and simplify my life and I will be there with bells on to sign on to support it.

Robin Hood

@GabrielsLamb Ha!