I believe the better federal grant programs would include food stamps, state health insurance for children and pregnant women, and energy assistance. And now with more jobless Americans, unemployment insurance and benefits will surely help.

There are NO good Federal grant programs. The FedGov is so far away from the needs of the recipients that the money often ends up in the wrong hands, wasted.

And, to reiterate Akston, by a strict reading of the Constitution, the programs are all illegal.

Pragmatically, the trick is to try to measure them by their results, not the intentions.

Philosophically, the question becomes: When is it okay to take things from people by threat of force? How deeply would I have to care about an issue for it to be okay for me to take your hard-earned money to support my interest?

Legally, the question becomes an interpretation of the U. S. Constitution. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it. The language is a little dated, but still approachable. Congress is supposed to have enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the list at Article 1, Section 8, then they’re not authorized to do it. See also Amendment 10:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If enough people want to add to those enumerated powers, Article 5 allows us to change them.

I believe the better federal grant programs would include food stamps, state health insurance for children and pregnant women, and energy assistance. And now with more jobless Americans, unemployment insurance and benefits will surely help.

If by “state health insurance”, you mean “provided by the States” as opposed the Federal Government, then we’d have to check the constitution of the states involved. If you meant “the state” as a more general reference to the national governing entity, then the U. S. Constitution is what we need to consult.

It can feel very natural to seek governmental solutions to what we perceive are cultural problems. But governmental solutions often provide ineffective, immoral, and illegal answers to issues which can be better addressed by the voluntary interaction of free people.

Pragmatically, the trick is to try to measure them by their results, not the intentions.

Philosophically, the question becomes: When is it okay to take things from people by threat of force? How deeply would I have to care about an issue for it to be okay for me to take your hard-earned money to support my interest?

Legally, the question becomes an interpretation of the U. S. Constitution. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it. The language is a little dated, but still approachable. Congress is supposed to have enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the list at Article 1, Section 8, then they’re not authorized to do it. See also Amendment 10:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If enough people want to add to those enumerated powers, Article 5 allows us to change them.

I believe the better federal grant programs would include food stamps, state health insurance for children and pregnant women, and energy assistance. And now with more jobless Americans, unemployment insurance and benefits will surely help.

If by “state health insurance”, you mean “provided by the States” as opposed the Federal Government, then we’d have to check the constitution of the states involved. If you meant “the state” as a more general reference to the national governing entity, then the U. S. Constitution is what we need to consult.

It can feel very natural to seek governmental solutions to what we perceive are cultural problems. But governmental solutions often provide ineffective, immoral, and illegal answers to issues which can be better addressed by the voluntary interaction of free people.

Pragmatically, the trick is to try to measure them by their results, not the intentions.

Philosophically, the question becomes: When is it okay to take things from people by threat of force? How deeply would I have to care about an issue for it to be okay for me to take your hard-earned money to support my interest?

Legally, the question becomes an interpretation of the U. S. Constitution. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it. The language is a little dated, but still approachable. Congress is supposed to have enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the list at Article 1, Section 8, then they’re not authorized to do it. See also Amendment 10:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If enough people want to add to those enumerated powers, Article 5 allows us to change them.

I believe the better federal grant programs would include food stamps, state health insurance for children and pregnant women, and energy assistance. And now with more jobless Americans, unemployment insurance and benefits will surely help.
If by “state health insurance”, you mean “provided by the States” as opposed the Federal Government, then we’d have to check the constitution of the states involved. If you meant “the state” as a more general reference to the national governing entity, then the U. S. Constitution is what we need to consult.

It can feel very natural to seek governmental solutions to what we perceive are cultural problems. But governmental solutions often provide ineffective, immoral, and illegal answers to issues which can be better addressed by the voluntary interaction of free people.

Food tamps may be a short term necessity – mt family used them at one time but it is a hugely abused program – I wish I was poor enough to get hundreds of dollars a month to buy soda, chips and brand name snacks. It also creates a huge federal lobby by those who sell food to the fed and raises prices fro the rest of us so we pay for the program twice (taxes and increased prices).

lastly unemployment insurance. Don’t be fooled by the name – it is not insurance. Employers pay for this out of money they could otherwise use to expand their business, hire people or give you a raise. Economics tells us that subsidize something and you get more of it.

From what I can gather about our incoming government their theory is: If we take all the failed policies of the last 100 years and try them all at that the same time everything will be ok. “This time it’s bound to work” ought to be their motto; “”all we have to do is spend even MORE money” their rallying cry.

Good luck to us all…

Just as the hyperinflation of the Weimar years paved the way for the Nazi rise to power, and the inflation of the post 1904 inflation paved the way for the Bolshevik rise to power in Russia, the collapse of the U.S. economy as a result of George Bush’s brand of governance will probably pave the way for authoritarian government. My guess is that we will experiment with fascism.

What happens when we vote ourselves money from our childrens’ and grand childrens’ treasury as well as the treasuries of other countries then spend it 10 times over?

Does the term Indentured Servant sound appropriate?