SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
America divided – this concept increasingly graces political discourse in the U.S., pitting left against right, conservative thought against the liberal agenda. But for decades, Americans have been rearranging along another divide, one just as stark if not far more significant – a chasm once bridged by a flourishing middle class.
Peter Temin, Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT, believes the ongoing death of “middle America” has sparked the emergence of two countries within one, the hallmark of developing nations. In his new book, The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy, Temin paints a bleak picture where one country has a bounty of resources and power, and the other toils day after day with minimal access to the long-coveted American dream.
In his view, the United States is shifting toward an economic and political makeup more similar to developing nations than the wealthy, economically stable nation it has long been. Temin applied W. Arthur Lewis’s economic model – designed to understand the workings of developing countries – to the United States in an effort to document how inequality has grown in America.
The 2017 World Economic Forum had the answer: "The people who have not benefited from globalization need to try harder to emulate those who have succeeded," and, "'People have to take more ownership of upgrading themselves on a continuous basis.'"
(Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:22PM (18 children)
No, that's completely wrong. It says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So the pursuit of Happiness (among other rights), came from the Creator, or are inherent, if you prefer. It does NOT call for government to "promote" it. It calls for government to get out of the way of it. To wit: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:49PM (9 children)
GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE.
Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:28PM (7 children)
What is the source of authority for the USA's Constitution if not by delegation from mostly Joe Blow average people like you or I?
If I alone do not have the authority to demand half of all your production, then neither can I delegate that same task to anyone else. (If you disagree, please feel free to respond showing your willingness to send me half your income.)
Therefore any claims to taxation authority in the Constitution is void as it has zero legitimacy and its only source of power is identical to that of an armed mugger, as well as being the exact moral equivalent: criminal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:29PM (6 children)
I usually don't argue with toddlers, but I'll make an exception this time: taxes are the price you pay for your fancy society. If you don't quite understand that concept, then I'm afraid you'll never get a nice green sticker to put on your suspenders for the day from the teacher.
Now off you go, go play somewhere where you can't hurt yourself.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:26PM
Hmmm, sounds to me like you haven't argued with anyone else other than toddlers with that shoddy an argument. The obvious rebuttal here is that sure, you can pay taxes for a fancy society. You can also pay taxes for a thoroughly corrupt, bankrupt society. Don't expect people to be respectful of paying taxes, when their taxes go to destructive or blighted purposes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:59PM
Invalid ad hominem aside, you are equating "fancy society" with slavery. Are you perchance pining for the olden days of your family's southern cotton plantations?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:59AM (3 children)
Looks like the toddlers have a pretty good vocabulary, sadly they definitely don't get a sticker. Maybe we should cram them into the time machine and send them back to China during the revolutionary days for a "vacation" in a re-education camp. Maybe then they'll appreciate the taxation method of promoting the good / general welfare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:54AM (2 children)
If there's no authority delegated to the Constitution to demand taxes (regardless of the words written, such authority cannot be delegated to it because normal people like you and I have no such authority to give), there's no authority for other forms of slavery such as your Chinese re-education camps.
Taxation doesn't produce "good / general welfare" - all it produces is resources taken from another via force. Muggers do that. Do you view muggers as producing "good / general welfare" for anyone but themselves?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)
False equivalency goes no where.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:59PM
That's exactly my point: neither those that pay mere lip service to the Constitution nor the document itself are synonymous with authority.
The Constitution was not created in a vacuum nor by the master slave-holder for all humans within the Colonial borders - it was produced by ordinary people who could only delegate powers they themselves already possessed. A collection of delegated powers can not exceed those of its source.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:01PM
The discussion was about the Declaration of Independence. Why are you quoting the Constitution? What does that have to do with the topic?
As far as the "general welfare" clause, do you know the difference between the meaning of general welfare of a nation in the 18th century and the meaning of welfare spending today? Anyway, according to what the framers said in the Federalist Papers, the clause imparted no additional powers to the federal government that were not already enumerated.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:30PM (3 children)
And it continues with:
You attempted a cheap misdirection by omission. You are wrong.
The Declaration is quite clear, when you don't quote it selectively, that Government should protect the right to the pursuit of happiness and to promote happiness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:31AM
And what is the remedy, as stated by the same source, for when government does not protect such rights?
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:08PM (1 child)
Protecting the inherent right of a person to pursue their own happiness is a vastly different concept than promoting happiness. You're attempting to conflate the two and it's not the same at all.
As an example, there is a group that decides which country has the "happiest" people. Typically one of the Scandinavian countries gets top honors in this category. Yet, the ONLY criteria they use is based on government policies - they do not examine any criteria based on the actual feelings and attitudes of the citizens. As a result, the country that last year was deemed the happiest was one that had one of the highest proportion of their citizens taking antidepressants or other mood-altering pharmaceuticals. Clearly, "promoting" happiness and protecting the right to pursue happiness are not the same.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:10PM
Apparently, your reading skills are defective. You seem to be incapable of reading this part: "organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:25PM (3 children)
As TMB put it above “[the government] exists to protect the rights of its people”; therefore, if you admit that the “pursuit of happiness” is a right (come from the Creator or as social construct), we come to the logical conclusion that the government (at least in the ol’ U.S. of A.) is obliged to protect your right to happiness and ‘protection’ does not mean simply to get out of the way.
Think of your right to life. The State must not only punish those who might kill you, which would be equivalent of “getting out of the way” until something bad happens to you.
The State has the obligation to make sure your life is not threatened by others or by circumstances, so you have everything from the FAA, FDA, Fire Departments, OSHA and other agencies charged with promoting your right to live by reducing your chances to die.
I’m sorry to see the people regard the government as something separate and apart from society; not saying that people are wrong, just saying I’m sorry the political class has grown so distant from truly representing the people. And I’m sorry to see fellows who fail to grasp that they have a right to demand a better government and not simply shrug and decide it’s not their business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:33AM (2 children)
Wow. You really are in for a rude awakening should you stumble across Warren vs D.C. [findlaw.com] and its implications [firearmsandliberty.com].
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:55AM (1 child)
Can you read? The Court did not rule on any of allegations, only on the dismissal of the action. (And one must be idiotic to fail to use a lawyer when attempting to sue the government as this guy did; anyone who thinks they can just file a suit without professional legal assistantance, will get trounced by government lawyers.) You're other link is about suing police and counties over an alleged failure to protect someone, which drives my point: you get the government you voted for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @03:39AM
*cough* The wrong Warren vs D.C. [justia.com] case was linked, tho the second article referred to the correct case from 1981. This link to the sketchy-but-available justia site is correct.
Government refuses to take responsibility for your safety. Why do you persist in the delusion that it does something it explicitly denies?