Fuck them sufferers. - James Madison (probably)
Government shouldn't be stealing from hard workers to give to people who screwed up.
There's already private charity, but the amount of government charity has hurt the ability of people to freely give to a more efficient private charity.
I'm torn on Madison. On the one hand, holy based. On the other, Federalist.
It is rather odd to make a statement like that and not see how a consolidation of power in Washington would not end well.
Ok, you believe in god you end up in heaven and the first thing you see next to the entrance gate is a sign that reads "~ Holy Constitution of Heaven ~ By We The People" and right under that title you have "Article 1: God shall not infringe upon people's freedom of speech", "Article 2: God shall not infringe upon people's right to bear arms", etc...
Right away, what does that tell you of god and its people, of the nature of their relationship?
You would think stuffs happened and obviously resulted in that guy "god" having a bunch of restrictions specifically imposed upon him by everybody else, and they even made that big sign and placed it right next the entrance gate so everybody gets the memo; god has a tendency to censor and expropriate its people, at minima, and that's only for article 1 and 2, you have hundreds like that
>It is rather odd to make a statement like that and not see how a consolidation of power in Washington would not end well.
They knew
It's like a tech, a car if you will; you know it's going to turn to shit if a bunch of idiots remain in charge of it for long enough
Makes you wonder what his motive were to accelerate the process of destruction.
Separation of powers and the federalist system, with strong states rights, was supposed to keep power in the hands of the individual as much as possible.
In Madison's time, charity was the work of the churches.
As it should be.
It's not charity if it is compulsory.
Fucking right. 50-60% of the US budget is literally charity. We need to stop this shit.
I wouldn't call all of Social Security and Medicare charity. People do pay into like an insurance model. You are essentially correct though and any argument against it is semantics imo.
I would, Social Security is charity to illegals and politicians raiding it from day one for their special pet slush funds.
Yes. But that's not what it was supposed to be.
Fundamentally I do not disagree with you.
Foreign aid
Common sense economics 101. Welfare is Not sustainable and only a moron can not see what happens when the money runs out.
Denying people the right to suffer the outcome of bad decisions is the same as encouraging people to make bad decisions
There is a case to be made for charity. Going back to this time period, it wasn't a young widow's fault if her husband suddenly died. But back then people had larger families and the church as well.
Not the governments business. Governments can't deal with individual situations.
But in your case recall that the young widow poisoned her young husband and the local community knows it but not the central government.
Discretion is a favorable variable that charity can impose.
Charity: Widows and orphans get money, food, goods, care, etc. Young men get opportunities to work their tails off.
Welfare: We give people money and take it away from people who start to get somewhere.
Charity is a euphemism for tax free writeoff.
![“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of… sufferers.” - James Madison [560x560 - 297KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/6yDNyY.png){kind=link}
(post is archived)