posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:07 PM
First, regarding the constitutionality of certain programs... Most of them are covered by the first clause of Article I, section 8. "General
welfare" goes pretty far beyond "tax breaks for billionaires" y'know.
Now as for the other stuff... SlackerWire is right. It's not his responsibility to take care of people with bad jobs. Nobody says it is. He may think
that's the case, but it's certainly not.
However, as others have pointed out, Slacker's life largely depends on the people he describes as "Stupid" because, in all likelihood, he cannot
grow his own produce or handle his own livestock for food, he can't do his own taxes, probably is unable to build his own house, change a tire, fight
fires on his own, etc.
It is thus in his own self-interest - which as far as I can gather, is the only interest he has - to ensure that these people receive enough
compensation for their services and products in order to keep them content, educated, and healthy. Since we are in a capitalist economy we cannot rely
on employers to pick up the tab on this, so it falls to the government to provide the backup for these service providers. It's in the best interest
of the nation as a whole.
Which takes us back to the "general welfare" thing, doesn't it?
And, for those of you arguing about state's rights... Are you really so clueless as to think that a system that was completely unworkable at its
inception would somehow magically work today? It was unmanageable when there were 13 states, and only got worse and worse as more got added.
Sometimes, folks, those old dudes in wigs got it wrong, and this is one such case. Now if you want to utterly screw over your country in the name of
literalist idealism, please, find a country stupid enough to take you up on it.