Objects of Benevolence...

[Henry Hawk]

Objects of benevolence

It seems to me that somewhere down the line, when I forefathers instituted the documentation known as our Constitution, to current day Washington DC politics, our politicians has deemed themselves the power to use federal dollars on benevolent manners. This "Object of benevolence" spending now accounts for at least 2/3 of our federal budget.

These "entitlement" programs such as welfare, medicare, medcaid, aid to higher education, farm subsidies, business subsidies and the latest ObamaCare, to name a few, make up nearly 70% of our federal budget. James Madison, the father or our Constitution, once stood on the floor of the House, declaring:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

We need to ask this question, has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"?

Thomas Jefferson was clear and concise when he said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Charity has no part of the legislative duty of our federal government. It seems to me that our hard earned income is now, being confiscated and redistributed unconstitutionally. Our federal government's number one reason for its existence is to Defend our way of life! Not to constrain it, Not to provide for it, and surely not to redistribute it!! They are sworn to "defend, preserve and protect" this way of life, according to our Constitution.

Ben Franklin said it best, "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."

It is my personal belief that if our government would restore this nation as it was intended; allowing all of its citizens to pursue happiness, in the tradition of free enterprise, in the conservative capitalistic sense, these so called "objects of benevolence" would be taken care of by these industrious, God-fearing, hard working folks known as Americans. We have proved in the past days of this nation that we (U.S.A) are the most generous and giving, benevolent group of people on the planet. To make this a slightly more "religious hub", I will take it one step further, that most of this country's citizens are Bible believing folks, who take words such as "Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to." As our "good book" has taught us.

I think the mere corruption of today's politicians find it a great way to assure themselves votes to stay in power, by being a rescuer of those who are down and out, by using this "Object of Benevolence" as a means of spending taxpayers dollars.
I say, it is time for this to end, and honor our Constitution.

[Palehorse]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

benevolent |bəˈnevələnt|
adjective
well meaning and kindly : a benevolent smile.
• (of an organization) serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose : a benevolent fund.

Seems to me the purpose of government is indeed "benevolent in nature, in that it should be well meaning and kindly toward its peoples and as an organization serve the people in a benevolent vein inasmuch as it should not be for profit, but rather to promote the general welfare of its peoples and territories, via the means necessary for benefit of the nation as a whole, and its posterity.

It is within this very nature that federal programs like social security (Social Security act of 1935), Medicare/Medicaid (1965 Amendments), public assistance and welfare programs, unemployment insurance, etc. have been initiated during times not far removed from those we currently find ourselves within. The difference between those times and now is that the programs are already in place and nothing more is required other than to assure their infrastructure is robust enough to meet with present day demands. While that is clearly questionable given the dire straights an ever increasing portion of today's society in this nation finds itself in, there is another key difference where today is concerned; and that is the growing perception from an ever increasing percentage of leadership that these programs amount to charity and enable, and in a lot of perspectives encourage individuals to adopt a lifestyle that encompasses living off the efforts of others.

While such viewpoints and approaches may have had a time period in the recent past wherein a large portion of those on the rolls of these systems were indeed malingerers and lazy individuals doing just that, the reality that is this year and the previous two to three years is far removed from those outdated and greedy viewpoints.

The overwhelming majority of the individuals forced into these systems today are people with a long and admirable history of doing what it took to provide a comfortable home and life for themselves and their families through a personal constitution that encompassed hard work and long hours. The majority of them have toiled long and hard in manufacturing industries that were, and in some cases still are, the lifeblood of this nations economy and its livelihood, and through no fault of their own after decades of faithful and hard won dedication to their chosen careers they have found themselves without work because of factory of facility closings, and unable to obtain work for those very same reasons. The fact is most of the individuals currently on the unemployment roles, for example, are there for only the first or second time in their entire lives, and despite a consistent and diligent efforts to seek out and secure employment, they have been met with nationwide absence of employment opportunities.

Those lucky enough to continue within their chosen careers in this caustic environment are increasingly adopting an attitude toward these social safety nets that may very well have been valid 5 years ago, but today amounts to nothing more than class assassination and kicking an individual when they are down, but it really is not totally their fault either.

The blame lays squarely upon the political structure of this nation, who failed to act when the systems were truly being abused, and now somehow see it as some kind of "mandate" or political cause to treat those of us forced to rely upon these systems as those who abused them SHOULD have been treated when it should have been an issue.  The true measure of a man, and a nation, is what they do with power, and in the present day that power is being utilized to abuse the least amongst us at a time when that social class is growing to historic proportions.

These politicians are invoking emotional propaganda in order to elicit a knee jerk reaction from the people they supposedly represent, to achieve a political agenda that is not as well received as they would hope it to be. And in doing so they are utilizing the worst possible "example" as a lever to obtain some kind of twisted political goal. Instead of targeting areas of the budget and government structure that are far overdue for reorganization or restructuring, they are targeting and using the social safety net this country established because it was an imperative problem even back when they were established, and treading roughshod over programs that at the end of the day would serve only to achieve a very minute fraction of the end goal.

They are stalling in order to figure out how to keep what they see as their own livelihoods, from being impacted by this national crises, and using the least amongst us to bolster the positions of those that have the most. And the saddest part about this is that they are using those not currently negatively impacted by this crises to achieve it, by feeding them emotional based propaganda that amounts to fear mongering, to do nothing more than to protect themselves; and all on the backs of the least amongst us. And soon even those people who are joining their cause will become a part of the very class they are sacrificing at the alter of power.

It is a sad day in the history of this nation, when we decide that the lives of the 20-40 million unemployed people and their families are not important enough to continue endorsing the programs our modern day fore fathers, and indeed our modern day fellow Americans, once deemed vital to the promotion of the general welfare and in securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Would it not be a more kindred act to put off the question of validity surrounding these programs to a time within which this nation returns to general posterity and productivity, and instead utilize the knives to cut off the true fat? One would think so. . .



But then, I am not a hypocritical republican either! 

[Y]

Hank,

Your unoriginal (I've read the same ideas expressed from other ill-informed RW propagandists) lil' treatise is included (along with theirs) as some of the biggest steaming piles of crap I've read.

First off, it's based on a blatant lie.  Facts are military spending accounts for over half the budget - that's right, OVER HALF!

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm



U.S Federal Budget 2009 Fiscal Year

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

Hank wrote: ...Charity has no part of the legislative duty of our federal government...

With that statement you show once again you haven't the slightest idea of the purpose of society OR government.  Why do you think I've repeatedly asked you "What is the purpose of government?", and repeatedly said to you that your concept of both amounts to nothing more than "Nature red in tooth and claw" - anarchy. 

You don't/won't understand that either.

[Y]

Hank, I hate to say this, but I truly think it needs to be said.

There are some intelligent people on here, and in the world, but you're not one of them.  As a Clint Eastwood line goes "A man has got to know his limitations", and that's because it's the starting point for one's personal road to enlightenment.  You don't know yours, and your ego won't allow you to.  Your 'faith', and I'm not necessarily speaking on religion here, has all the 'answers' in spite of all the facts, evidence, and logic anyone else can provide.  That's why you don't grow intellectually, and why you wallow in ignorance living by logical fallacies such as the Appeal to Popularity.

Take that personally and sulk or whine about it if you wish, but it's a documented fact. 

I've spent years trying to help enlighten you and to get you to use your head for something other than a mouthpiece for the RW Noize Machine, but sadly I'm coming around to Ex's thinking - it's all been a monumental waste of time.

I think I feel a rant coming on...

[Palehorse]

Rant away brother! I've got mine out there! 

[Henry Hawk]

Rant away my Brothers, and Y, even though you speak a big game, and try to bully your way around with your liberal "intellect".  Just because YOU say something is empirical facts, does not make it so.  Despite your belief that I am merely a RW "Mouthpiece", you would be wrong.  I spend much time reading, mostly crap that YOU guys post, and have come to my own, formulated opinions.  Based upon my upbringing, and life circumstances....

but I do digress...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

My 2/3 of our federal spending IS for benevolent purposes....or is YOU proof more valid than mine?

the defense in 2009 was only 23% of our total spending....

True IT is a monumental waste of time for YOU or EX to waste your "empirical" evidence on me.... 50% of this country is in disagreement with you and your ilk...

but, thanks for your comments, I really do enjoy hearing from you...

[Locutus]

HH, what of the above, besides Social Security and Medicare do you consider "benevolent" spending?  Those two only account for 39% according to the chart.

[Henry Hawk]

WELL, throw in the TARP, the higher education, farm subsidies, business subsidies and the latest ObamaCare...and we are more than there.....

[Y]

...I spend much time reading, mostly crap that YOU guys post, and have come to my own, formulated opinions...

but I do digress...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

My 2/3 of our federal spending IS for benevolent purposes....or is YOU proof more valid than mine?

the defense in 2009 was only 23% of our total spending....

True IT is a monumental waste of time for YOU or EX to waste your "empirical" evidence on me.... 50% of this country is in disagreement with you and your ilk...

1) You 'read' the things I/we post do you?  Obviously you didn't read the link I posted, so can we consider that a lie on your part?

The link I posted showed exactly how the percentages I quoted were compiled:

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion



Current Military
$965 billion:
• Military Personnel $129 billion
• Operation & Maint. $241 billion
• Procurement $143 billion
• Research & Dev. $79 billion
• Construction $15 billion
• Family Housing $3 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $70 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $9 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
• State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
• "Global War on Terror" $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget's grossly underestimated $38 billion in "allowances" to be spent in 2009 for the "War on Terror," which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]

Past Military,
$484 billion:
• Veterans' Benefits $94 billion
• Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billion

Human Resources
$789 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.

General Government
$304 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury
• Government personnel
• Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (15%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.

Physical Resources
$117 billion:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (15%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources
   
HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

Current military" includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget's misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the "war on terror." "Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.


...and why the percentages you quoted don't paint the correct picture:

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).

the government's deceptive pie chart:



Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008


...but you 'read' the things I/we post and use critical thinking and analysis to arrive at you 'well-considered opinions'... <cough-cough>


2) I pointed out to you that you live your life by logical fallacies such as the Appeal to Popularity and that you don't even comprehend it, THEN you're SO full of yourself and your lack of intelligence that you make certain you put it up on full display by doing exactly what I pointed out you do.  Unbelievable!

Your "50%" comment is a classic example of that logical fallacy the Appeal to Popularity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Argumentum ad populum

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger"...

...Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true...


I certainly hope you have the sensibility to feel shame.  It might be the first faltering steps toward your enlightenment.

[Exterminator]

First off, it's based on a blatant lie.

Yep; as soon as I read the 2/3 part, I went and checked and saved myself from haing to read any further.

[Y]

Yep; as soon as I read the 2/3 part, I went and checked and saved myself from haing to read any further.

Unfortunately, far too many people don't understand the critical thinking and analysis process, how it works, and how important it is - especially in a country where self-governance is our choice.

[Palehorse]

Unfortunately, far too many people don't understand the critical thinking and analysis process, how it works, and how important it is - especially in a country where self-governance is our choice.

I couldn't agree with this statement with any more vigor!

Yep; as soon as I read the 2/3 part, I went and checked and saved myself from haing to read any further.

And that is exactly one of the advantages of adopting critical thought! It can save you from having to waste a large portion of your time in reading items that are no more factual than the comic section of the Sunday newspaper!

[Henry Hawk]

I couldn't agree with this statement with any more vigor!

And that is exactly one of the advantages of adopting critical thought! It can save you from having to waste a large portion of your time in reading items that are no more factual than the comic section of the Sunday newspaper!

well you einstiens need to critical read more, the federal expenditures  for 2010 are as follows:

22% - went to Health
21% - went to Pension
15% - went to Welfare

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

NEARLY 2/3 of the spending, is for benevolent purposes....

even though it is NOT exactly two thirds, you have managed to miss the point to the message I was relaying...that seems to be a standard tactic when ever I seem to be on to something.  I was NO lie, btw.....The actual source I used at the time was from a commentary I had heard on the radio.

Do you guys even realize how big of arrogant snobs you guys appear to be?  that is what you guys sound like, you brag about how intellect, YOU guys are.....and how OTHERS don't understand how to "critically" think....it is ALMOST  comical.

I am thankful that enough of us uncritical thinkers are out there, to get this country back on track....I guess we are just lucky...

[me]

What they are calling critical thinking is nothing more than mumbo jumbo meant to confuse.  Clouding issues with unnecessary BS to prove a point that is mostly speculation on their part and on the part of the person they got their information from.  No matter if the proof is right in their faces they would rather believe a pie chart or some graph that drops a little info here and adds a little there to make the figures work and then they can tell you yours were wrong.  They never learned to look at the whole picture only choosing the parts that suited them and pushed their particular agenda.  They will never understand that the utopia that the current administration is pushing comes with a heavy price to pay and I'm not just referring to money.   
This pretty well sums up the monetary part of it though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM

well you einstiens need to critical read more, the federal expenditures  for 2010 are as follows:

22% - went to Health
21% - went to Pension
15% - went to Welfare

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

NEARLY 2/3 of the spending, is for benevolent purposes....

even though it is NOT exactly two thirds, you have managed to miss the point to the message I was relaying...that seems to be a standard tactic when ever I seem to be on to something.  I was NO lie, btw.....The actual source I used at the time was from a commentary I had heard on the radio.

Do you guys even realize how big of arrogant snobs you guys appear to be?  that is what you guys sound like, you brag about how intellect, YOU guys are.....and how OTHERS don't understand how to "critically" think....it is ALMOST  comical.

I am thankful that enough of us uncritical thinkers are out there, to get this country back on track....I guess we are just lucky...

[Exterminator]

Congratulations, Henry, you just emphatically proved every point Y made about you with your use of that site as your reference point.  The real numbers are available directly from the government on their own websites if you'd care to actually engage in some real critical thinking and do some real research.  At least you put forth the extra effort to make yourself look even more foolish by lauding your insight and intelligence...trust me, Mensa material you are not.

Me, your blather is barely worth even responding to but suffice it to say that if intellect was money, you wouldn't have two nickles to rub together.