A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

 

[P@triot]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

Outstanding (as always) Fox! We need to reform the corruption in Washington and stuff like this is the first step in doing that.

 

[Moonglow]

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

To generalized

 

[Moonglow]

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly

 

[P@triot]

There is a reason the framers did not add ANY entitlements to the Constitution. They didn't add healthcare, despite the fact that people got sick and they had doctors back then. They didn't add Social Security, despite the fact that they had people hungry back then. They didn't add government subsidized housing, despite the fact that they had homeless back then.

Sadly, we've allowed the Communism/Marxism/Socialism movements of the late 1800's / early 1900's to hijack a good portion of our government and we're seeing the results of that now. $16 trillion in debt, high unemployment, and catastrophic failure every where. We have to take it back (we made a great first step in doing so during the November 2010 elections, we need to take another huge step this November). We need more Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's and we need to "drain the swamp" of the radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

 

[Moonglow]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

Then we can stop calling ourselves a Christian nation? When Muslims are feeding their poor and hungry from govt funds, we should be ashamed to pass this.

 

[saveliberty]

Your still subject to Supreme Court review of what the amendment means. I think enumerating what the federal government is limited to spending funds on and excluding all others might be a better course.

 

[P@triot]

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly

I find it terribly disturbing that the left keeps pointing to China as an example of what to be like. They are a true Communist nation, complete with oppression and misery.

Every liberal on USMB points to China and not too long ago, psycho Elizabeth Warren stated that China spends 9% of their GDP on infrastructure while we spend 1%, as if China is a nation we should admire and model ourselves after.

Can you help me understand MG why you guys keep point to China? The people in China would literally committ murder to get away from their oppressive Communist regime and come here to America. China has massive ghost towns, complete with malls, rails, etc. that are completely empty because they spend money developing "infrastructure" that is not needed. Not exactly something to model yourself after.

 

[Moonglow]

There is a reason the framers did not add ANY entitlements to the Constitution. They didn't add healthcare, despite the fact that people got sick and they had doctors back then. They didn't add Social Security, despite the fact that they had people hungry back then. They didn't add government subsidized housing, despite the fact that they had homeless back then.

Sadly, we've allowed the Communism/Marxism/Socialism movements of the late 1800's / early 1900's to hijack a good portion of our government and we're seeing the results of that now. $16 trillion in debt, high unemployment, and catastrophic failure every where. We have to take it back (we made a great first step in doing so during the November 2010 elections, we need to take another huge step this November). We need more Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's and we need to "drain the swamp" of the radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

Not true. The govt. bough Jeffersons library beause he was old and poor.
There were other instances where petitioning Congress brought govt. relief.
Free land from the US govt. was given to all that would settle and work the land.
The Indians recieved welfare only to have greedy whites steal the materials given, the Wild West was given fed troop protection when petitioned, even if it was not a state.
The railroads recieved govt. help to build the TCR. That helped people move west and ease the long journey by boat around the southern coast of South America.
The Freedmans office which help blacks to vote and to receive their 40 acres and a mule for compen\sation of being enslaved.
lincoln wanted 40 million in 6% bonds to pay for emancipation by payment of slaves to slave owners.

 

[saveliberty]

There is a reason the framers did not add ANY entitlements to the Constitution. They didn't add healthcare, despite the fact that people got sick and they had doctors back then. They didn't add Social Security, despite the fact that they had people hungry back then. They didn't add government subsidized housing, despite the fact that they had homeless back then.

Sadly, we've allowed the Communism/Marxism/Socialism movements of the late 1800's / early 1900's to hijack a good portion of our government and we're seeing the results of that now. $16 trillion in debt, high unemployment, and catastrophic failure every where. We have to take it back (we made a great first step in doing so during the November 2010 elections, we need to take another huge step this November). We need more Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's and we need to "drain the swamp" of the radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

Not true. The govt. bough Jeffersons library beause he was old and poor.
There were other instances where petitioning Congress brought govt. relief.
Free land from the US govt. was given to all that would setle and work the land.
The Indians recieved welfare only to have greedy whites steal the materials given, the Wild West was given fed troop protection when petitioned, even if it was not a state.

The operative words in the post were, "not in the Constitution". It still stands that none of what you wrote is in the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

Then we can stop calling ourselves a Christian nation? When Muslims are feeding their poor and hungry from govt funds, we should be ashamed to pass this.

There is nothing in the resolution to prevent Christians at any level other than the federal level from being benevolent to anybody they wish. And with the exception of Kuwait where there really are more millions than there are people, but in which class status still strongly prevails, there are almost no Muslim countries that do not have many people living in crushing poverty.

The purpose of the resolution is to eliminate what I believe is the rampant abuse resulting from the ability of those in the federal government to use our money for their own benefit, the widespread corruption resulting from that, and in a manner from which we the people are so removed that we are powerless to stop it without a new law.

 

[Moonglow]

It will never stop until those in power have the ability to want to stop it.

 

[Foxfyre]

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

To generalized

How would you write it so that it was more specific?

 

[Foxfyre]

It will never stop until those in power have the ability to want to stop it.

How would the resolution as written not give them the power to stop it?

 

[Vast LWC]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

OK,

I like it. Since all federal funds will be distributed on a per capita basis, red states will finally be forced to stop living off the welfare of blue states.

The extra money can be distributed on a state level, and big population states like New York will finally not only not have to pay for all the extra funding enjoyed by Montana and Alaska, but can distribute it to whomever they wish.

However, I would insist the following addendum be added, since we're going to have a Constitutional Convention and all:

1. The practice of usury or "loan sharking", defined as "lending money to anyone with said loan having an interest rate exceeding 10%, is hereby made illegal in the United States.

Any debt that is currently held wherein the bearer is being charged interest of more than 10% shall immediately have their interest lowered below the legal rate.

Creditors can, of course, feel free to stop extending new credit to whomever they wish, if they feel this law to be too much of a burden.

 

[Wiseacre]

Would this proposal mean that the federal gov't could not declare certain areas as disasters, and no federal support could be provided? Floods , fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, we couldn't help those specific affected people?

 

[Wiseacre]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

OK,

I like it. Since all federal funds will be distributed on a per capita basis, red states will finally be forced to stop living off the welfare of blue states.

Musta missed it, where does it say that?

The extra money can be distributed on a state level, and big population states like New York will finally not only not have to pay for all the extra funding enjoyed by Montana and Alaska, but can distribute it to whomever they wish.

However, I would insist the following addendum be added, since we're going to have a Constitutional Convention and all:

1. The practice of usury or "loan sharking", defined as "lending money to anyone with said loan having an interest rate exceeding 10%, is hereby made illegal in the United States.

Any debt that is currently held wherein the bearer is being charged interest of more than 10% shall immediately have their interest lowered below the legal rate.

Creditors can, of course, feel free to stop extending new credit to whomever they wish, if they feel this law to be too much of a burden.

???? Why the emphasis on interest rates? That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?

 

[thanatos144]

How about we just actually follow the constitution we have now????????????

 

[Vast LWC]

???? Why the emphasis on interest rates? That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?

Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money. If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your still subject to Supreme Court review of what the amendment means. I think enumerating what the federal government is limited to spending funds on and excluding all others might be a better course.

But how could we ever be wise enough to include every possibility that might come up? No, I think restriting government from using our money to choose winners and losers to the advantage of those dispensing the money is the way to go.

I can see the ultimate law being written to ensure that constitutionally necessary government contracts are evenly distributed among the various states on a per electoral district basis as much as possible and otherwise let contracts to the lowest qualified bidder. But it will be illegal for federal government can't use our money to buy our votes or to use against us.