...

 BK>> I should have said in the right wing political
 BK>>  lexicon. Welfare itself has existed in this country since before
 BK>> there was a 'this country'.

 BA> In most cases it was institutionalized and those receiving
 BA> 'welfare' worked to get it.  Decades if not over a century
 BA> ago most midwest counties had a 'poor farm' where the poor
 BA> folks lived, and those folks worked the farm.  Of course in

 I would not try to say what most was in something like this. We
 have all heard about poor farms, and there were poor houses,
 workhouses, etc. I don't know what was the most, though.

 BA> those days farming was very labor intensive and today it is
 BA> not. Government welfare payments only started with maybe
 BA> the Depression and didn't really get going until the late
 BA> 1950s.

 Farm labor is not all that necessary today, and hardly
 worthwhile for govt farms.

 BA> 'Welfare' as such was handled by the various states, and
 BA> different states had differing benefits levels and
 BA> differing eligibility requirements.  In the late 1950s
 BA> CA was quite generous with its benefits.  I can remember my
 BA> parents grousing about second and third generations of
 BA> families living on the dole and unwed mothers churning out
 BA> babies while on welfare; mostly they griped about people
 BA> moving to CA just to get on the welfare wagon.  CA tried to
 BA> put an end to that by passing a law that one had to live in
 BA> the state for one year before one would be eligibile for
 BA> benefits, but the federal courts shot that idea down.  Then

 I believe, even back then, the welfare benefits were federal
 funds matched by state funds. Which is why the supreme court
 could rule that way.

 BA> the feds started passing laws (or regulations, in the US
 BA> government system they're effectively the same thing) that
 BA> set out what benefits the states had to pay and
 BA> what eligibility requirements the states were allowed to
 BA> use.  In short, the feds
 BA> have only been running the welfare system for about half a
 BA> century, not 'since before the country was founded.'

 I never said the Feds were running it, since there were no feds
 before the country was founded. As it is, until the Welfare
 reform bill the states still played the low benefit games. I
 think they still do. Only now they get a block grant from the
 federal govt.

 BA> Much of that 'welfare' you refer to was charitable
 BA> spending, and a lot if not most
 BA> of it was handled by private organizations.  Charitable
 BA> contributions have declined
 BA> significantly since the government arrogated the functions
 BA> to itself.

 No, I was talking about govt funding. Now days the right likes
 to call everything that is not military "social welfare". Used
 to be the govt listed social welfare by programs, and they were
 all what we would call welfare. In 1890 social welfare was 2.4%
 of the GDP, and 38% of govt spending. (Historical statistics of
 the US).

 BK>> And the right wingers have long  attacked
 BK>> the "social welfare" spending, even though that
covers  everything
 BK>> from federal law enforcement to the dept of energy,  who do maintain
 BK>> our nuclear weapons research. And much of it is  *EXPLICITLY*
 BK>> authorized in the constitution, and the rest is a  reasonable
 BK>> interpretation.

 BA> 'Reasonable' is another one of those subjective concepts
 BA> like 'fair.'  What you find 'fair' and 'reasonable' I might
 BA> find 'unfair' and 'unreasonable.'

 True. You do need to restudy your positions then.

 BA> You might point out which of the seventeen specific areas
 BA> in which the congress is permitted to pass laws
 BA> *explicitly* authorizes anything resembling the current
 BA> welfare system, which effectively is taking from one class
 BA> of individuals (taxpayers)
 BA> and giving that taking to another class of individuals
 BA> (recipients).

 I won't even bother, as long as a govt agency, The Federal
 Reserve Board, makes it policy to fight inflation by putting
 people out of work, I hold it a govt responsibility to make
 restitution for the harm caused.

 BA> And while on that
 BA> subject I also don't see anything there that allows the
 BA> feds to use tax money to bribe
 BA> and/or coerce the various state and local governments with
 BA> 'grants.'

 Depends on what the subject is. The  method is legal if the
 purpose is. AFAICS.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Excuse the nuclear fallout, but my finger slipped.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a