PDA

View Full Version : Great Barry Goldwater Quote



llotter
01-23-2011, 03:31 PM
Barry Goldwater on the welfare state: "Dismantle it. If we take from someone the personal responsibilty for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free."

To which I would add that redistributing wealth first breaks one of the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not steal, in addition to breaking the the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 03:43 PM
President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, on the Constitutionality and desirability of the welfare state:

You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.2

I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case.3 Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce."4 But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. 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 you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Sev
01-23-2011, 04:44 PM
Ike also warned about the industrial military complex.

Soc Sec in Ikes time also was not broken.
Farming was not being taken over by giant corporations and the small family farm was not in danger of extinction.
I am not aware of anybody suggesting abolishing labor laws or unemployment insurance. I would suggest that the last may need to be revisited considering the amount of extensions that have been given.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 02:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry Goldwater on the welfare state: "Dismantle it. If we take from someone the personal responsibilty for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free."

To which I would add that redistributing wealth first breaks one of the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not steal, in addition to breaking the the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. </div></div>


</div></div>

It isn't stealing, it's called taxation, which IS among the enumerated powers of Congress. The 4th amendment does not secure the population against taxation, which is central to all government imaginable.

According to the Constitution, the federal government is specifically empowered to raise and spend tax dollars for the common defense and the general welfare. General welfare is mentioned in the same sentence as defense.

The original Confederation of States agreement did not provide the federal government any assured revenues, almost requiring begging from the states. The Constitution was motivated by the need for the federal government to have assured revenues, and granted it both taxation, excise tax, and duties income.

One of President George Washington's early acts (1794) was to mount up the militia of several states under his own generalship as president, and quash the Whiskey Rebellion, which opposed a tax increase that had been duly signed into law. It was specifically targeted against individuals as a sin tax, and not intended to broadly impact everyone the same, to overcome the general dislike of taxation among the people.

It worked. Overall, people supported targeting the few by rule of law, and there can hardly be a better founder pedigree than something G. Washington was involved in personally.

So, yes, they took from a few, deliberately, to distribute to the many, and this all occurred before there were liberals, or even Republicans*, and before there was a 19th century for that matter, in 1794.

*The Democratic Party, about the oldest party in the world now, was once and semi-originally known as the Republican-Democratic Party. That's not the one I mean.

Sev
01-24-2011, 06:23 AM
The Whiskey rebellion was also used as and experiment by Washington to see if the troops would muster. 13,000 did.

However the state of taxation then vs today is quite different and should be considered theft. The federal government has expanded far beyond what the founders would have considered acceptable.
In states such as NY if you dont own property total taxation when combining local, state and federal is near 60%. And the government is still failing at all levels.

Gayle in MD
01-24-2011, 04:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry Goldwater on the welfare state: "Dismantle it. If we take from someone the personal responsibilty for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free."

To which I would add that redistributing wealth first breaks one of the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not steal, in addition to breaking the the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. </div></div>


</div></div>

Years before he died, Goldwater condemned the Republican Party, and their Policies.

He was against the changes he saw in his former party, and particularly against the Neocons.

He was actually, co-writing, Conservatives Without Conscience, with John Dean.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
G.

llotter
01-25-2011, 09:07 AM
The point is about the Goldwater quote, not his feelings about other 'Republican' subjects.

llotter
01-25-2011, 09:32 AM
the whiskey tax was an excise tax which was specifically authorized by the Constitution. The protest was more about how it hit small distillers to the advantage of larger ones, not the authority itself and eventually it was repealed. Sev is right also to point out that the level of federal intrusion and control is on a wholly different plateau today and not comparable.

Even some on the Left were agog about the Kelo decision where they let eminent domain transfer the home of a citizen to public use for purely financial reasons. Many thought that that went against the Fourth Amendment because it was clearly 'property' but it seems to me that money is also property and redistributing money is just as much of an unconstitutional intrusion.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2011, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is about the Goldwater quote, not his feelings about other 'Republican' subjects. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To which I would add that redistributing wealth first breaks one of the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not steal, in addition to breaking the the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution:

</div></div>

Since you're so concerned about the constitution, and freedom, what makes you think you have the right to praise a cold blooded killer, who killed a man, who was not breaking with the Constitution, or the law.

The POINT is that Goldwater, before he died, was against the REPUBLICAN Party, because he felt that REPUBLICANS had broken with the Constitution, and because he felt that they had squandered national treasure, for personal gain, with a lie that led to war, redistributed wealth, away from the tax payers, to the wealthy corporate mil;itary industrial complex, and to the top one percent, not to mention, all of the lies to led the country into war, all for oil contracts for the Bush/Cheney corporate cronies.

You rigties want it both ways, you want everything to be Constitutional, until the Constitution goes against your beliefs, then you're ready to throw it out of the window, even if you have to support a murdering POS, like the one you praise.

The world is not perfect. People have needs. Christians, of all people, should be willing to contribute to those less fortunate, and the money the right is willing to squander in order to kill peoplke, on the other side of the world, costs far more treasure, and life, than the contributions to the ill and hungry, right here.

There is nothing insolvent about SS, anyway.

Your boy Reagan, ruined things, when he gave amnesty to illegals, and the illegal invasion along with the emergency room, medical costs went thorough the roof.

You've been taxed by your own party, for those costs, for decades, in fact.

Wake up! Republicans would like to give everything to the rich, and destroy all else.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Where do you think you can live in this world, without paying taxes?

What kind of country would this be, with starving, and ill people on our streets?

Goldwater was against government interference, into pesonal lives, particularly, when based on religious tenents.

He was against the government trashing the environment, as well.

Bush and Cheney have killoed more peo9ple, than anny former administration, if you factor in all of the people who are dying from cancer, because of the filth they made way for in our environment, and their religious obstruction into Stem Cell Research.

There is nothing Christian, nor Constitutional, nor respectful of personal privacy, nor environmentally responaible, about the Christian coalition, of the Republican Party, nor the Republiocan party, in general. The seek to dictate to others, according to their own F-ed up religious beliefs, while they have no conscience about denying people medical help, or food for our hungry children, and aid for our Veterans.,.
G.

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Do you ever have a real thought, or are you only capable of repeating the same BS over and over?

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the whiskey tax was an excise tax which was specifically authorized by the Constitution. The protest was more about how it hit small distillers to the advantage of larger ones, not the authority itself and eventually it was repealed. Sev is right also to point out that the level of federal intrusion and control is on a wholly different plateau today and not comparable.

Even some on the Left were agog about the Kelo decision where they let eminent domain transfer the home of a citizen to public use for purely financial reasons. Many thought that that went against the Fourth Amendment because it was clearly 'property' but it seems to me that money is also property and redistributing money is just as much of an unconstitutional intrusion.
</div></div>

Money is basically property, and therefore one cannot be deprived of it WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (is the only bar. With due process of law, the state can deprive you of your life, let alone liberty and property). Since the income tax became part of the Constitution by amendment, and laws were duly passed implementing it, the due process of law part is fairly clear, making that legit.

What the right never mentions (or rarely, save for Ron Paul and such) is that there is equally a menace in the warfare state as in the welfare state, and neither is particularly consistent what the founders intended. They rejected any kind of large standing army as a danger to the representative democracy.

What is your issue with