Should the government decide the "common good?"?

Question

Hillary Clinton has said on many occasions that something has to be taken away from people for the common good.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=clinton_something_has_to_be_taken_away_from_some_people&ns=AmandaCarpenter&dt=06/04/2007&page=full&comments=true
She is of course referring to taking money away from people for government funded social programs.
Do we really want the government to decide "the common good?" Is this just another way to coerce the populace?
One only needs to judge the efficiency of FEMA vs the American Red Cross, a government agency designed to serve the common good vs a private enterprise that serves the common good.
How can a political body, which is influenced by lobbyists and other special interest groups, be trusted to decide the common good?
Is not the "common good" best served by private enterprise and non-profits like the American Red Cross and other such organizations?

Answer 1

That's socialism for you. The underlyling logic is that the government owns what you earn and decides how much of it you "need". It's scary.

Atlas shrugs a little bit at a time.

Answer 2

None of this would be an issue if we would only follow the constitution. If we would just return to the basics, such as the fifty states acting like states and not wards of the federal government things would run much better.

State governments are supposed to do all that they possibly can on their own. The Federal Government is only supposed to do that which the states cannot do such as have a military. It would not be efficient if each state had, say, its own Navy.

Do you realize that the Federal Government has no right to tell a state what speed limits it should have, what to teach in school, whether or not schools should provide pre-school or afterschool programs? Yet they do it all the time. They bypass the constitution by giving the states money for roads, education etc. and then threaten to cut the funds unless that state does what the Federal Government wants.

It is simply coercion but it has been going on so long that our esteemed representative in Washington actually brag about how much federal funding they bring home. The more federal funding you get the more strings attached.

The federal government is simply too strong now. Why? Let's say you don't like the way something is being done your state. You can move to another state.But if the Federal Government does something you don't like you are stuck.

This is supposed to be, The United STATES of America. Our founders could have called it anything they wanted. They could have given it a single name like other nations such as Spain, Italy, France, Canada but they did not. The name describes what it is supposed to be. A bunch of separate "states" united by a federal system.

Instead we have a bloated, cumbersome, over-reaching bureaucracy that is interferring in our lives more and more. It is looting our wealth then giving us back a small percentage and we think this is a good thing.

.

Answer 3

First, she's talking about rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the people who have all the money yet pay the least tax, not taxing the people who don't have any money but have to pay all the tax.

Second, when there was a human being in the White House, FEMA did it's job and did it well. Clinton appointed someone competent to head it. Someone who actually knew what he was doing.

It's when we got that sub-human corrupt freak in power that he went about destroying FEMA, and the rest of the country as well, by appointing corrupt, moronic freaks to every position.

What the government should do is listen to the will of the people, not simply decide the common good among themselves.

But since most voters are brainless sheep who vote for deep pockets, rather than people who want to do what's right, the rich own the government, and use it to take everything away from the rest of us.

If voters stopped being brain-dead sheep, we could take the government back.

It would then respond to our needs, as it should.

And I disagree the common good is best served by private enterprise.

Private enterprise has no interest whatsoever in the common good, in fact is much more interested in ripping people off than doing good.

Turning public works over to people like those who run Haliburton (thieves) is just about the dumbest thing we could do.

They take the money and run.

How does that serve the common good?

Answer 4

Most Americans won't understand this, but the founders put a built in breaking system into the Constitution.

THE USE OF GOLD & SILVER AS MONEY!

Why would this work?
Because the money pumping federal reserve {a private corporation} would no longer control the money supply.....We The People would.

American history tells us that from inception to about 1933 America as a whole had prosperity without ANY inflation, under the Gold standard.

That all changed when F.D. Roosevelt took Americans off the Gold standard.

The USA has been involved in almost continous wars since then, and everything now points to visions of an empire at the expense of other less developed countries.

So, what payed for these wars and massive expansion moves?

Answer:
Unbacked federal reserve notes issued enmasse at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, that are continously losing value because of the sheer numbers of them in circulation.

A U.S. dollar was worth 1/20th of an ounce of Gold from 1797 to 1932....

The only hope I see for the future of America is to elect Ron Paul president. A strong believer in sound money & a strict Constitutionalist.

Answer 5

Considering the government's track record on deciding the "common good" from affirmative action to social security to natural disaster, private organizations are much better.

Personal note, having been in a tornado, I can tell you, FEMA is a horrible department. FEMA wanted to give me low interest loans for my business. The Red Cross brought food and helped clean up the yard. I'd suggest donate the money used to fund FEMA to the Red Cross and New Orleans would be in much better shape.

Definitely, private organizations like the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Boy Scouts, church groups have done more for the common good than the government's counterparts have or will ever do. I believe the social programs of the government are started with the best intentions, but the fall short compared to private charities.

Answer 6

Absolutly NOT! The constitution grants life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, How can a Government determine what that is. They must create laws to protect peoples rights, but not determine what the common good is for the country. They are there to serve, they are not there to be all things for all people. Just look at history, the more Government gets involved, the worse things get.

Answer 7

If a "political body, which is influenced by lobbyists and other special interest groups" doesn't determine the "common good," then the "common good" will be determined by the lobbyists and the special interests groups themselves.

Lobbyists and special interest groups that not atypically comprise various representatives of your wonderful private industries, by the way.

The only difference would be, instead of having your one measly vote's worth of say in the matter, you would have no say at all.

Answer 8

I say it incredibly is incredibly sinister. the all people is so blind to this flood-tide waiting to engulf them. I even have felt for a protracted time that there replaced into some form of dumbing down of the country going on and the CP are in all procedures keen, able, and doing basically that. maybe the reason of peoples apathy is the way they are being taught with out being responsive to it. Brainwashed into an unthinking decrease order. A gradually extra uneducated inhabitants may well be less demanding to regulate. basically what the CP ordered

Answer 9

The government's deciding the common good...is their common good, not America's. FEMA is a bad joke pushed off on the American people, The Red Cross is one of the few organizations I will donate money to because of their track record. Our government has become so corrupt it really doesn't matter which party is in control, they are both lying thieves.

Answer 10

This is why I'm a libertarian. Basically, I believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others in the process. I also don't want the government to overtax me just because many people can't afford the lifestyle they have chosen. It makes no sense for me to pay for someone else who has five kids just because they can't afford those kids. They should have thought about that before having them. I work hard for what I earn, and I don't think it's too much to ask to keep a large majority for myself. Welfare should be for people who struggle due to unforeseen situations, not for people too lazy to work or too stupid to use birth control. Social Security is a joke; let me use that money to invest in my own retirement. Trust me, I'll be able to make enough to avoid taking money from others when I'm retired. The government needs to stop making a law for everything. Gay marriage doesn't hurt me, nor does other people getting abortions. Stop trying to legislate morality; leave that to the countries who require you to believe in a certain religion. The U.S. used to stand for freedom. What happened to that idea?

Answer 11

And without regulations that the government has in place you expect private enterprise such as Enron and Arthur Anderson to decide whats in the best interest for us? And remember the director of the Red Cross makes a million dollar salary...that person is really in touch with those they seek to help....yes while government is flawed...all organizations filled with people will be flawed it is controlled in some manner by the other branches of government....you eliminate the government control and all the lobbyists go to the private sector and private enterprises will be free to steal from the public and their employees at will.