Political Persuasion- how did you get there?

[scaeagles]

I was going to quote ISM but found there was too much to quote. I think JWBear, who somewhere else posted that Republicans act as if they have the moral high ground, needs to read that post by ISM and make a determination as to who believes they have moral high ground. Perhaps I will copy it to a word document and paste it whenever someone claims that Republicans act as if they are good and dems are evil. Apparently there are (gasp!) dems that have that attitude as well.

I don't really know what else to say about it. It would be pointless when I have been defined as supporting evil.

I can't really say why I am conservative. I have conservative leanings, but I consider myself to be a strict constructionist. I suppose Madison was evil when he said, when a small charitable appropriations bill came before him -

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

Does this mean I don't support charity? Not in the least. I support charity from charitable organizations of which the government should not be one.

I have read the Federalist Papers. I love the Constitution for what it was intended to be. Before anyone jumps on me and talks about slavery and women voting and the like, the Constitution was only intended to be a "living, breathing document" in terms of the amendment process. It is what it is and to change it requires not the whim of a legislator or President or judge, but a process, and it has rightly been changed in the past. It is not my goal to open a debate on Constitutional philosophy, but more to describe why I am the way I am.

Like LSPoor above me, I also believe that "all people deserve as good a life as possible". I just think that is done differently than liberals do.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I was going to quote ISM but found there was too much to quote. I think JWBear, who somewhere else posted that Republicans act as if they have the moral high ground, needs to read that post by ISM and make a determination as to who believes they have moral high ground. Perhaps I will copy it to a word document and paste it whenever someone claims that Republicans act as if they are good and dems are evil. Apparently there are (gasp!) dems that have that attitude as well.

I don't really know what else to say about it. It would be pointless when I have been defined as supporting evil.

I can't really say why I am conservative. I have conservative leanings, but I consider myself to be a strict constructionist. I suppose Madison was evil when he said, when a small charitable appropriations bill came before him -

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

Does this mean I don't support charity? Not in the least. I support charity from charitable organizations of which the government should not be one.

I have read the Federalist Papers. I love the Constitution for what it was intended to be. Before anyone jumps on me and talks about slavery and women voting and the like, the Constitution was only intended to be a "living, breathing document" in terms of the amendment process. It is what it is and to change it requires not the whim of a legislator or President or judge, but a process, and it has rightly been changed in the past. It is not my goal to open a debate on Constitutional philosophy, but more to describe why I am the way I am.

Like LSPoor above me, I also believe that "all people deserve as good a life as possible". I just think that is done differently than liberals do.

This all begs the question.

Whether it is good, right or moral to outlaw abortion, criminalize gay sex or ban gay marriage does not hinge on whether the effort would surpass constitutional scrutiny.

Whether it is good, right or moral for businesses to refuse to serve people based on race does not hinge on whether the Civil Rights Act really was a valid exercise of power under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether it would be good, right or moral for each state to enshrine one religion (which one might it be?) and ban all others does not hinge on whether Justice Scalia is right and the Establishment Clause only prevents Congress from establishing a national church.

By the way, why shouldn't the state or federal government be in the business of providing "charity?" By government charity, I assume you don't want to pay to help poor people. What else don't you want to pay for, directly or indirectly? Social security? Farm subsidies? Tax credits to industries? Public schools your kids don't attend? Maintenance on roads you don't drive? Government is just one form of organization and human action. If Jesus comes back and says, how're you doing with Matthew 25:31-46, I don't think he would be offended to see compassionate and charitable efforts being conducted through civil governments as opposed to megachurches.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Whether it is good, right or moral to outlaw abortion, criminalize gay sex or ban gay marriage does not hinge on whether the effort would surpass constitutional scrutiny.

What does it hinge on, in your opinion? I'm guessing it will be something about equally subjective and arbitrary.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

This all begs the question.

Whether it is good, right or moral .....

Whether it is good, right or moral.....

Whether it would be good, right or moral.....

By the way, why shouldn't the state or federal government be in the business of providing "charity?"

So....another democrat whom I assume dislikes that the Republicans stand on their pedestals and make morality judgements does the same? I'm shocked. So you are saying that you vote democrat because it is....well.....more moral. You make the judgement over and over that you dislike when Republicans make it.

Why shouldn't the government be in the business of providing charity? Well, the father of the Constitution that I quoted earlier, being Madison, seemed to think it was UnConstitutional. Apparently from your posting you think that constitutional scrutiny is a good thing. However, it is also apparent that it is only a good thing if you agree with the item that is put under such scrutiny.

As far as charitable work, I won't bother to list what I contribute to, and they are not primarily "megachurches", as you put it. As with my minimum wage example, the (so-called) charitable work of the government often does more harm than good.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

By the way, why shouldn't the state or federal government be in the business of providing "charity?" By government charity, I assume you don't want to pay to help poor people.

If someone doesn't want the government to help poor people, it does not automatically mean that person doesn't want to pay to help poor people. There are far better ways to assist the poor.

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

What else don't you want to pay for, directly or indirectly? Social security? Farm subsidies? Tax credits to industries? Public schools your kids don't attend? Maintenance on roads you don't drive?

It should not be the government's job to provide charity (including the ones you mentioned) Charity works best when run by private organisations who actually have to answer to those who donate to them. And besides, is it really "charity" when you're forced to donate? If Mr. Lewis comes to my door and threatens to kidnap me and throw me in his dungeon until I donate to Jerry's Kids, am I really making a charitable donation? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Government is just one form of organization and human action.

True, the worst example of it. It's bloated full of waste because it doesn't have to answer to anyone and is too big to manage effectively.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

If someone doesn't want the government to help poor people, it does not automatically mean that person doesn't want to pay to help poor people. There are far better ways to assist the poor.
It should not be the government's job to provide charity (including the ones you mentioned) Charity works best when run by private organisations who actually have to answer to those who donate to them. And besides, is it really "charity" when you're forced to donate? If Mr. Lewis comes to my door and threatens to kidnap me and throw me in his dungeon until I donate to Jerry's Kids, am I really making a charitable donation? I don't think so.
True, the worst example of it. It's bloated full of waste because it doesn't have to answer to anyone and is too big to manage effectively.

Private charitable organizations are big business, and they vary greatly in how much actually goes to the object of charity as opposed to the well paid administrators. The executive directors of these groups do not answer to the man on the street; they answer to 1) their board members, who usually are not averse to seeing people make a nice living and throw nice parties and 2) the IRS, who eventually will yank a charity's tax-exempt status and then, bye-bye charity.

You can't deny that tax policy shapes people's willingness to donate to charities (or buy homes). Repeal of the estate tax has greatly affected charitable giving. The increasing reach of the alternative minimum tax in states like California beyond the truly rich will do so as well.

I don't think all the charities in the countries put together could manage the welfare and food stamp programs as effectively as the government does, or feed and shelter the millions that they would have to if these programs were eliminated.

I assume you don't mean the part about not wanting to pay for public schools or road upkeep.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I assume you don't mean the part about not wanting to pay for public schools or road upkeep.

You assume incorrectly.