And one could easily argue that more police, better highways and grants to state colleges is redistribution of wealth based on percieved need.

I didn't reralize this was going to turn into a "look what I overcame thread" and "all people on welfare are ghetto bangers" thread, but okay, I'll take my turn.

For those of you who made good from foul circumstances, congratulations, but please don't dub you "public service" imto my face because it has feck all to do with anything. Furthermore, the idea of "donating to charity" instead of having our precious "tax dollars" used is an entirely different animal because you can't control what your charity spends its money on, although you can control (control used very loosely here, jokingly in fact) what your government spends money on through votes and feedback. Of course this is all a pipe dream in fact since government is now sold to the highest bidders and the pacs with the cash (why else do you think mccain was sympathizing with the illegals?), but the original idea still remains, a government controlled by the people should mean that if welfare is being spent on undeserving people then the voters and john q public put an end to it.

And the idea of "helping out your neighbor" and "community charity" is nothing but a farce. It doesn't happen. Americans are tightwads, and they want compensation for their pizza having onions on it, even though they didn't ask for no onions. You have no idea how many people I know who used pre-paid legal services, then get pissed because it doens't get them out of a ticket when they get caught doing 70 in 35 zone. FFS.

You guys who overcame harsh situations have a lot more in common with me than either of us would like to admit, and oddly enough I or my family have never used in any way shape or form any of the welfare system, with the notable exception of social security for the old folks; and please take note that only recently has social security been coined as "welfare", perhaps due to fiscal concerns, whereas its remained a sacred cow for generations and none of our conservative leaders prior to now have ever considered demonizing it, yet all of the sudden its "welfare", and its all the fault of the liberals

For every guy who overcomes the odds and makes good for himself, theres some little bitch whose mommy and daddy pays for his college and credit cards so he gets out of school with perfect credit and no job history and can buy a house, a dependable car and score a sweet job with his phat C average (a lot of those turn out to be liberals btw). And for every one of those little bitches, theres someone in a meduim sized town with no mass transit, who doesnt have a car and who has to walk to his minumum wage job, then gets fired because he shows up late on a rainy day. God forbid we toss that person some foodstamps.

Conservatives like to imagine that every tax dollar taken from them is spent on welfare and programs they don't agree with. Not a cent of it went to anything else, right?

Stop demonizing the idea and instead demonize the system that grew to reward no-gooders. Believe it or not, unions were actually good at one point, and they did what the federal government wouldnt do amidst the 1920s manufacturing scumbags like Henry Ford who put the dollar above liberty and dignity. Now look at unions, they are a sham. It's the same with welfare.

Liberalism and expanded government are one in the same. The liberal interpretation of the constitution means to allow for every possibility that the constitution may have meant in order to expand the power of the government. The problem with this is that liberals are inconsistent, and this is why I equate liberal theory to redistribution theory: Liberals would consolidate power into the hands of the federal administration, and have done so through the commerce clause and supremacy clause (Raiche Vs. Ashcroft). Liberal interpretation also made it so "emminent domain" for the public good included taking property from one person and giving it to another so that they can make the government more money with taxes (Kelo Vs. New London). But yet, liberal interpretation stops there. What about the 2nd amendment? What about the absolute and total errosion of the 9th amendment with rulings like Kelo and Raiche which expand government power beyond that which is enumerated? What about the same issue with the 10th amendment?

Liberal interpretation is about expanding government power. Liberals are autocrats and believe (Benevolently or malevolently I know not) that the government knows best and that power should be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Liberals believe that the common people are too stupid and too lazy to work hard for themselves and so they must be cared for.

You are thinking more about liberalism than liberals do. I'm not going to argue that what you said there is untrue, because its not. There are plenty of liberals in high level government and universities who genuinley want what you say, be it for their own personal gain or their percieved good of the nation. But for the 45 year old guy who loses his job at thr jeans factory and needs some food stamps to get by for the month, consolidated power and a socialist movement are likely the farhtest things from his mind.

You guys are taking broad political labels and applying them to society that is based on money, money, money, votes and more money, thanks to a government made up of careerists and opportunists. We have had a conservative administration and congress now for a good while, yet welfare remains virtually unchanged. why is that? could the same taint that affects their inaction also affect the actions of the liberals in office? $$$$$$$$$????