That isn’t much of a reason for the establishment of a poverty standard. It is more of a reason for government restraint so that there isn’t a system to game and take advantage of.

It “promotes the general welfare” is a best attempt at a constitutional call for welfare. There are actually some good quotes on this at Free Republic: (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm) that certainly indicate that this term has little to do with what I would call the “specific welfare” programs that we have now. Your term “minimum welfare” is telling that you are referring to specific people rather than the general welfare.

Your argument is basically to placate the “masses” or at least the poor by bribing them with welfare.

I do not want to return to a “pure libertarian ideal of nature.” I just want to read the Constitution and live up to it. For better or worse, it would disallow all of our welfare programs. (And the NSF; and NPR; and National Endowment for the Arts; and ….)

Once again. If you think that we need to insure a “minimum welfare” there is a place to do that–the State House.

If you want to disinvite the government from exerting stabilizing influence, then why not return society to a pure libertarian ideal of nature. Today with government enforced law it is the advantage of the intelligent… but only until recently. Advantage used to accrue to the strong and the brutal.

In real estate foreclosure in Indianapolis we have a perfect example… not merely of fraud.. but of a great number of ultimately well-heeled people legally inducing the poor to assume debt they didn’t understand or to refinance the homes that were their only property just to extract fees for the transaction.

Societies again and again in the last century have suffered upheaval as the poor and the frustrated finally seize by force what they perceive to have been accrued by cunning. That is the systemic alternative to promoting at least a minimum welfare for some. Revolutionary movements historically have thrown not only the aristocrats against the wall, but the intelligentsia and the bourgeois. I have little doubt that you and I would fare poorly!

Just look at the folks that got the windfall from the legalization of slots. The state legalized ONLY SO FAR…. so those with the best lobbyists made out like bandits while poorer but no less worthy citizens have to frequent the approved casinos rather than run their own on the corner. Not that I favor gambling, by the way.

Why?

I’m not saying that the poor or destitute should not be helped. I’m just asking a fundamental question of what is the logical basis for the use of a poverty level and why people should be brought up to that level by the government.

It doesn’t matter if the government is providing funds or materials, it is the same level of “socialism”.

But don’t miss my main point: the Feds should not be involved in it at all–it is unconstitutional and unproductive.

My second point is that it should be non-government charities providing goods and services.

If we insist on going to the states and localities to provide this “safety net” it should be done in as responsible and minimal way possible. I’ve stood behind folk using food stamps (that needs a new title, in my mind) to buy steak and candy bars–that doesn’t seem like a particularly good way to handle welfare to me.

But my (conservative) assumption is that anything that the government does will be inefficient and fraught with corruption. This is why it should be minimized.

The EITC is welfare. I consider that unconstitutional on the Federal level. On a state level, I am not opposed to it absolutely, but at the same time I am not sure that it does what the program promotes. I generally do not care for any wealth redistribution efforts.

“Welfare”–and by that I mean the efforts to provide some kind of safety net for those who are unable to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves–is most effectively handled by churches and other charities. It would be easier for them to do so if our governments would reduce their tax burdens by reducing their size. States and localities that feel the need to provide welfare would do better by assisting with the actual goods that are needed (food, clothing, shelter) rather than providing cash.

Do you oppose the use of an Earned Income Tax Credit?

The problem is that the stated end goals of the leading candidates is not just mandates, but Federally run health care. Essentially they want Medicare/Medicaid/S-CHIP etc. extended in some form to everyone. Hillary has pushed that in the past and I have no reason to believe that her desires have changed. But her methodologies to get to that point are different.

There are significant differences between the socialized medicine or even the various mandated insurance coverage proposals than mandated auto insurance. One is that the mandated insurance is coverage on the damage that you cause to someone else, while health insurance is covering yourself. Another is that auto insurance is a requirement of driving a car, which is an optional activity, that is engaged by people on government owned property (i.e. the roads) while living a breathing is not an option, unless you call Dr. Kevorkian. Comparing the two is “rhetorical hyperbole”.

Since wages and certainly the minimum wage are things that feed prices of goods, an indexed minimum wage would actually feed inflation in an upward death spiral. (That is, the increase in the minimum wage causes inflation that causes the minimum wage to increase that causes inflation…..) The continued use of the minimum wage is just another way that the government controls more aspects of its people and generally to the detriment of the economy.

I do not believe that I have ever argued that the Republicans are pure on any matter. But there are elements of conservatism or classic liberalism in the Republican Party that seem to be completely absent in the Democrat Party.

Historically socialism has had various forms (e.g. Democratic Socialism; Communism; Nazism; Italian Fascism) which are all forms of totalitarian governments. I hesitate to use that term because it is more loaded than socialism. But they all have the common idea that the State is what is controlling all aspects of citizen’s life. That is EXACTLY what the Democratic leadership wants. So I will switch my terminology, for you, to Totalitarian rather than socialist.

Please give up the moral superiority crap.