(no subject)

[akilika.livejournal.com]

I've been tempted to bring things I saw on Facebook over here a few times, but stopped, because the thought of dragging over my friends' things so that I could make fun of them... well, it struck me as cowardly and not the mark of a good friend. (In general I prefer to do my commenting directly, but--between wanting to spare my FB friends politics (at least the ones who don't talk it themselves) and not being sure what the FB system would report to where...)


BUT ANYWAY. I've Liked The Federalist Papers as a way to make *some* of the politics I see on my wall be ones I agreed with. Today they posted this:



Which isn't one of their more clever, and wouldn't be one of the ones I gave particular thought to (I mostly like them for their Founding Fathers quotes)--but I was glancing through the comments, and the first one I saw was this:

There is a distinct difference between providing a basic income so no one is left with nothing and a complete redistribution of wealth. The preamble of the Constitution includes the statement, "promote the general Welfare." Abandoning the people in their time of need is not promoting their general welfare in way, shape, or form.

Eisenhower saw this distinction. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

The key is to provide a basic, minimal income for everyone to maintain their power as a consumer and their ability maintain a functioning home. Do that while freeing up the American market and discouraging outsourcing and this country's position as the world's economic powerhouse will be guaranteed.

Seeing this posted to the Federalist Papers FB amuses me because... well...

1) None of the programs cited here existed or were going to exist in any form anytime soon when Madison, Hamilton and Jay were writing. The argument wasn't between a federal government that addressed the needs of the poor versus one that didn't--it was between a federal government with basically any power of its own or not.

2) At least one of the Federalist Papers was fairly pointed about how it was stupid to read the power to tax to promote the general welfare very broadly, and no one could do so in good faith. (Not that the comment is citing that part--but the Preamble doesn't even have the force of law, so it's... even sillier.)

3) And on a more general note, how on earth can you free up markets while providing a national income? How can you discourage outsourcing while providing Americans what can only be assumed to be several times what foreign citizens are willing to work for for doing nothing? I'm not even sure what the phrase "power as a consumer" means, so I'll leave that one for now...

And of course, the Eisenhower quote ... that only argues that to disband those programs is politically infeasible, which speaks absolutely nothing as to right, wrong, beneficial or harmful. (Seriously, all I can get out of it for certain is "Yeah, good luck with that one!") If we read it as it's probably intended by this post--that the thought of dismantling the programs is stupid and only cared for by a very few of the extremely privileged, not the probability of success--then, wow, we've got baseless ad hominem with an implicit appeal to authority (a PRESIDENT said it, after all!)

...so yeah.

That was actually a funny little thing to wake up from my afternoon nap for, so I thought I'd share it. ^_^