So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

[VoiceOfReason]

Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.

Congress passing a law does not make said law Constitutional. The concept of the federal government not having the authority to act as an agent of charity was well established until the 1900s...which leads to the question of who misinterpreted the matter?

Considering Madison is the one who wrote it, I think his interpretation counts for a helluva lot more than anyone who came along 200, or even 100, years later.

Why? People act like the founding father are Gods? They were wealthy Britons who had a GREAT idea about freedom and liberty... and, oh yeah, had the interesting side effect of lowering their own taxes.

So... Madison made a statement worthy of Ebeneezer Scrooge... so what? Have they closed the prisons? Charity should have been his business... mercy should have been his business. Merry Christmas

[VoiceOfReason]

Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.

Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals

Again with the reading comprehension issues. Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

Liberal charities are far out numbered by conservative and religious ones. No oversight, just the way it is. It's even worse when you take away the charities devoted to killing babies.

Religious charities and conservative charities are not the same thing. There are any liberal churches out there. Is Catholic Charities - one of the largest worldwide - liberal or conservative? Given people's views on the current Pope I would be careful with this one.

My point is... don't believe for a minute that conservatives have any more claim on private charity than moderates or liberal do. If you think they do, please provide evidence to support that. I can tell you I have many liberal and conservatives friends who donate both time and money to private charity.

[Hokie CPA]

Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.

Congress passing a law does not make said law Constitutional. The concept of the federal government not having the authority to act as an agent of charity was well established until the 1900s...which leads to the question of who misinterpreted the matter?

Considering Madison is the one who wrote it, I think his interpretation counts for a helluva lot more than anyone who came along 200, or even 100, years later.

Why? People act like the founding father are Gods? They were wealthy Britons who had a GREAT idea about freedom and liberty... and, oh yeah, had the interesting side effect of lowering their own taxes.

Because he WROTE IT. He also wrote the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment which says that any powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are RESERVED TO THE STATES. So when he says he can't find the authority in the Constitution for the federal government to do something, he knows EXACTLY what he's talking about... it is up to the INDIVIDUAL AND SOVEREIGN STATES to pass such programs into law within their own borders.

[HvilleHokie]

Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.

Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals

Again with the reading comprehension issues. Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

Liberal charities are far out numbered by conservative and religious ones. No oversight, just the way it is. It's even worse when you take away the charities devoted to killing babies.

the idea that religious charities are lumped in conservative ones is nonsense. they are largely non-partisan and if anything, lean a little to the left.

[Hokie5150]

Is Catholic Charities - one of the largest worldwide - liberal or conservative?

What is their position on abortion? Are anti-abortion organizations generally considered liberal or conservative?

[Hokie5150]

People act like the founding father are Gods?

gods? no. In a far better position to know and understand the intent of the founding documents? Yes.

[ip_law-hokie]

Yet another deflect.

Bingo. Funny that neither Houtex nor IP atttempted an actual answer.

I'll engage in this "debate" with you if you can name one position that you've ever moved to the left, as a result of your interaction on this board, or similar boards.

[hokie80]

Yet another deflect.

Bingo. Funny that neither Houtex nor IP atttempted an actual answer.

I'll engage in this "debate" with you if you can name one position that you've ever moved to the left, as a result of your interaction on this board, or similar boards.

My stance on Gay Marriage.

I'll await your response.

[ip_law-hokie]

Yet another deflect.

Bingo. Funny that neither Houtex nor IP atttempted an actual answer.

I'll engage in this "debate" with you if you can name one position that you've ever moved to the left, as a result of your interaction on this board, or similar boards.

My stance on Gay Marriage.

I'll await your response.

did you just admit to being a 5150 dupe? My challenge was to the author of this thread.

[Hokie5150]

I'll engage in this "debate" with you if you can name one position that you've ever moved to the left, as a result of your interaction on this board, or similar boards.

I've gone from ambivalent on the topic of gay marriage to fully supportive of the matter as long as government is involved in marriage (I don't think it should be), there is no legitimate reason to bar gays from marrying.

[hokie80]

Yet another deflect.

Bingo. Funny that neither Houtex nor IP atttempted an actual answer.

I'll engage in this "debate" with you if you can name one position that you've ever moved to the left, as a result of your interaction on this board, or similar boards.

My stance on Gay Marriage.

I'll await your response.

did you just admit to being a 5150 dupe? My challenge was to the author of this thread.

I asked you the same question.

Yet again, you deflect.

[ip_law-hokie]

well, 80 if I entertained your request, I'd lose leverage. And we can't have that.

[ip_law-hokie]

I'll engage in this "debate" with you if you can name one position that you've ever moved to the left, as a result of your interaction on this board, or similar boards.

I've gone from ambivalent on the topic of gay marriage to fully supportive of the matter as long as government is involved in marriage (I don't think it should be), there is no legitimate reason to bar gays from marrying.

too nuanced. Nice try, maybe next time.

[Hokie5150]

too nuanced. Nice try, maybe next time.

Exactly as expected. I addressed your question to the letter.

[BigDave]

Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.

Congress passing a law does not make said law Constitutional. The concept of the federal government not having the authority to act as an agent of charity was well established until the 1900s...which leads to the question of who misinterpreted the matter?

Question: If there was even a chance that the safety net laws were unConstitutional... don't you think the Rs would have challenged them in courts by now? That is the proper check and balance last time I checked. Until the courts declare such laws unConstitutional... I am afraid you will have to accept the fact that they are indeed Constitutional.

That's ridiculous. You seem to think that the Supreme Court is blessed with omniscience, or at least with the ability and inclination to determine absolute truth.

Nine people saying "it's constitutional" doesn't change the actual text of the constitution, no matter how much wishy thinking may be applied to the situation.

Congress is granted by the constitution certain enumerated powers and anything outside of those enumerated powers is unconstitutional, whether anyone agrees with that or not.

A dog has four legs. Suppose that we decide to call the tail a leg. How many legs does it have? It still has four - whether we agree or not. We could get every single person on this board to agree that the tail is a leg and the dog has five legs. We could write it into the forum rules along with "Please be civil. Go Hokies. Beat William & Mary." But despite our sincere efforts, the underlying reality would not be changed.

Statist politicians can pass a law and other statist politicians (who call themselves "judges" or "justicies") can uphold that law, but their actions don't change the underlying reality if their law violates the constitution.

As to one of your other question - questioning why none of the welfare programs were ever challenged - please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

[awesome guy]

Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.

Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals

Again with the reading comprehension issues. Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

Liberal charities are far out numbered by conservative and religious ones. No oversight, just the way it is. It's even worse when you take away the charities devoted to killing babies.

the idea that religious charities are lumped in conservative ones is nonsense. they are largely non-partisan and if anything, lean a little to the left.

false.

[hokie80]

well, 80 if I entertained your request, I'd lose leverage. And we can't have that.

Have to admit, this made me laugh.

[HvilleHokie]

Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.

Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals

Again with the reading comprehension issues. Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

Liberal charities are far out numbered by conservative and religious ones. No oversight, just the way it is. It's even worse when you take away the charities devoted to killing babies.

the idea that religious charities are lumped in conservative ones is nonsense. they are largely non-partisan and if anything, lean a little to the left.

false.

so use big dave's analogy from earlier.. .just because you say a dog has 5 legs, doesn't make it so.

[hokie80]

I'm pretty sure a charity, in and of itself, doesn't lean right or left. It just provides money and services to others for no cost.

Now those that contribute to a charity probably lean right or left. And frankly, I don't know how you could accurately surmise which way they lean. Perhaps a Southern Baptist charity would tend to have doors that lean more to the right. But a Catholic Charity probably has more left leaning givers.

In any regard, this is kind of a pointless argument on the subject of wealth inequity.

[awesome guy]

Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.

Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals

Again with the reading comprehension issues. Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

Liberal charities are far out numbered by conservative and religious ones. No oversight, just the way it is. It's even worse when you take away the charities devoted to killing babies.

the idea that religious charities are lumped in conservative ones is nonsense. they are largely non-partisan and if anything, lean a little to the left.

false.

so use big dave's analogy from earlier.. .just because you say a dog has 5 legs, doesn't make it so.

and just because you say it has 6 doesn't make it so.

[VoiceOfReason]

Is Catholic Charities - one of the largest worldwide - liberal or conservative?

What is their position on abortion? Are anti-abortion organizations generally considered liberal or conservative?

We both know that answer. We also both know this answer...

What is there position on the poor? Income inequality? Social safety nets?

So I ask again... do you consider Catholic Charities liberal or conservative?

[Hokie5150]

Is Catholic Charities - one of the largest worldwide - liberal or conservative?

What is their position on abortion? Are anti-abortion organizations generally considered liberal or conservative?

We both know that answer. We also both know this answer...

What is there position on the poor? Income inequality? Social safety nets?

So I ask again... do you consider Catholic Charities liberal or conservative?

[VoiceOfReason]

That's ridiculous. You seem to think that the Supreme Court is blessed with omniscience, or at least with the ability and inclination to determine absolute truth.

Nine people saying "it's constitutional" doesn't change the actual text of the constitution, no matter how much wishy thinking may be applied to the situation.

Congress is granted by the constitution certain enumerated powers and anything outside of those enumerated powers is unconstitutional, whether anyone agrees with that or not.

A dog has four legs. Suppose that we decide to call the tail a leg. How many legs does it have? It still has four - whether we agree or not. We could get every single person on this board to agree that the tail is a leg and the dog has five legs. We could write it into the forum rules along with "Please be civil. Go Hokies. Beat William & Mary." But despite our sincere efforts, the underlying reality would not be changed.

Statist politicians can pass a law and other statist politicians (who call themselves "judges" or "justicies") can uphold that law, but their actions don't change the underlying reality if their law violates the constitution.

As to one of your other question - questioning why none of the welfare programs were ever challenged - please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

The Founding Fathers set up this system of checks and balances. The judicial branch of the government does have the authority to determine if something is Constitutional or not.

And thank you for bolstering my case. I had suspected the Rs in the 1930's might have challenged Social Security... since they went as bat-excrement crazy over SS as current Rs are doing with the ACA. And the courts found: "Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views... "

Nice that they included the slapdown to Madison in their ruling. You da man BigDave!

[awesome guy]

Is Catholic Charities - one of the largest worldwide - liberal or conservative?

What is their position on abortion? Are anti-abortion organizations generally considered liberal or conservative?

We both know that answer. We also both know this answer...

What is there position on the poor? Income inequality? Social safety nets?

So I ask again... do you consider Catholic Charities liberal or conservative?

Conservative. You LWNJs keep believing your own koolaide that only the left cares about the poor. The opposite is true. The right is very concerned with the poor as evidenced by their higher charity donations. Here's one link on it, there are many more. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012 ... ml?camp=pm

Left wing "charity" is hallmarked by massive federal programs. After all, you guys claim that's necessary since no one cares about the poor and you think charities don't really exist. So how can they be left wing when you think they don't even exist? Right wing charity on the other hand is just as the name implies, people voluntarily given to organizations and individuals to aid those in needs. You're form of giving is big brother, ours is brother to brother. And that's displayed in the dominance of right wing and religious charities from the right and the call for more and more social spending from the left. You guys are just ignorant of how charitable real people are.

[USN_Hokie]

Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) proposes wealth equality. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) thinks a brain surgeon should be paid the same as a McDonald's drive thru clerk.

Don't you get it? When you (or the POTUS) talks about the problem of the wealth/income inequality "gap," the exception proves the rule. I suppose that for some it's just a rhetorical strawman, but I'm going to go ahead and hold you (and the President) accountable for your words.

You talked earlier about the problem with CEO pay - go ahead, tell us - what is the appropriate amount of money that a CEO should make?