Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[marksinvirginia]

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..[/QUOTE]



************************************

The people can vote to dissolve the United States, if they wish. But the words "promote" and "provide" for the general welfare do not mean the government is required to give out money to people who would rather lay on their asses. That may be the Democrat's interpretation... but it was not the intent of the framers.

~Mark

 

[rightwinger]

If your their friend, help them. Don't wait for some government agency to humiliate them and place them in a system to be process like beef. I got a friend who is going through a tough financial time. She knows we have spare bedrooms that are hers for the asking. Your trying to complicate again.

Personal charity is wonderful. It provides close friends with a safety net when they are in dire need.

But what happens to people who do not have the network of friends to help them? If your good friend has a child with leukemia are you going to pick up the bills? We need a social welfare program to help those who otherwise would be left to suffer

Oh yes, I see the advantages of your system. Keep people socially isolated and controlled by being their source of life giving needs and information.

As opposed to ignoring their life giving needs and information

 

[saveliberty]

Personal charity is wonderful. It provides close friends with a safety net when they are in dire need.

But what happens to people who do not have the network of friends to help them? If your good friend has a child with leukemia are you going to pick up the bills? We need a social welfare program to help those who otherwise would be left to suffer

Oh yes, I see the advantages of your system. Keep people socially isolated and controlled by being their source of life giving needs and information.

As opposed to ignoring their life giving needs and information

As opposed to draining these resources with something called taxes and thwarting charity.

 

[lizzie]

why didn't they let blacks become full citizens since it said everyone is created equal? why did it take until mlks time?

Because at the time, slaves were pretty much considered personal property, just as women and children were at that time in America, and as women are in a good portion of the world today.

 

[lizzie]

While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.

Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.

Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

If the "general welfare" bankrupts the country, is it still considered general welfare for the good of the country?

 

[ConHog]

Good Lord some of you people on BOTH sides are insane. Ever hear of a middle ground? Yes the government should provide a minimal safety net for people in need, provided those people were tax paying citizens at some point in their lives. No that system should not ever become a way of life.

It's that simple.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh yes, I see the advantages of your system. Keep people socially isolated and controlled by being their source of life giving needs and information.

As opposed to ignoring their life giving needs and information

As opposed to draining these resources with something called taxes and thwarting charity.

Lord save me!

If I didn"t have to pay all these taxes, I could "trickle down" the money to charity

 

[ConHog]

As opposed to ignoring their life giving needs and information

As opposed to draining these resources with something called taxes and thwarting charity.

Lord save me!

If I didn"t have to pay all these taxes, I could "trickle down" the money to charity

The obvious problem with that being that who would voluntarily pay for some of the things the government forces us to pay for, and that doesn't mean just welfare programs. I honestly think that some of these idiots would completely defund the military if given the chance, just for example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, general welfare refers to the common good enjoyed by virtually everyone, but NOT social welfare.

Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.

So the Center for Disease Control is unconstitutional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

Why are you trying to blame Obama for starving children if you think starvation isn't a federal concern?

And, btw, we have a Civil War in our history that makes fearing 'state's rights' a legitimate fear.

 

[Charles_Main]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

Why are you trying to blame Obama for starving children if you think starvation isn't a federal concern?

And, btw, we have a Civil War in our history that makes fearing 'state's rights' a legitimate fear.

Fear states rights? Good god this attitude is exactly what is going to allow this country to turn into a lesser version of itself.

By the way the states the left the union and caused the civil war. Would not have invaded and tried subjugate the North. So what are you trying to say we have to fear states attacking us? Wrong what you need to fear is the Fed attacking your states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.

So Charles, you wonder why debate gets stifled? When we include the trolls in a one on one discussion, they win. They win because you admit you walk away wanting better.

I really do know how to play this game, but I have shown you here how to play it well. You did pretty damn good, but you allowed the troll into the discussion between us.

D

repeating...

 

[The T]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

Why are you trying to blame Obama for starving children if you think starvation isn't a federal concern?

And, btw, we have a Civil War in our history that makes fearing 'state's rights' a legitimate fear.

Is this why the FED ignores the Ninth and Tenth with impunity?

Imagine that?

You're a fucking MORON.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The people can vote to dissolve the United States, if they wish.

~Mark

interesting concept. Do you have any arguments with facts and theories to back this assertion up?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But the words "promote" and "provide" for the general welfare do not mean the government is required to give out money to people who would rather lay on their asses.

~Mark

who said they do? are you making up arguments and debating yourself?

 

[Twofox]

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe. To me it does not mean to provide subsistance living for everyone who wants it. This is the debate posed by the OP. The deffinition of the phrase.

General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Madison and Hamilton argued both sides of this issue. Keep in mind that Hamiltion tended towards a more powerful fed overall.

Also see: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_general_welfare_mean

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Good Lord some of you people on BOTH sides are insane. Ever hear of a middle ground? Yes the government should provide a minimal safety net for people in need, provided those people were tax paying citizens at some point in their lives. No that system should not ever become a way of life.

It's that simple.

Middle ground? I was unaware we were seeking a solution where reaching an agreement was the goal here. Please, clue me in

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.

Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.

Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

If the "general welfare" bankrupts the country, is it still considered general welfare for the good of the country?

I would think if the people want to bankrupt the nation they may. But I think elected leaders would be duty and honor bound to represent to the people a better way of living.

According to some misinformed people here, if the people wanted to bankrupt the nation, Congress has to and should go along. I disagree and so would the framers. A representative republic does not work that way.

The framers and the founders never agreed to back popular or direct democracy. And never has the American public. I would consider taking up arms against that possibility becoming real.

 

[Twofox]

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

If the "general welfare" bankrupts the country, is it still considered general welfare for the good of the country?

I would think if the people want to bankrupt the nation they may. But I think elected leaders would be duty and honor bound to represent to the people a better way of living.

According to some misinformed people here, if the people wanted to bankrupt the nation, Congress has to and should go along. I disagree and so would the framers. A representative republic does not work that way.

The framers and the founders never agreed to back popular or direct democracy. And never has the American public. I would consider taking up arms against that possibility becoming real.

Yet the congress bankrupting the country, or the gov't exercising too much control over it's citizens is also something folks would take up arms over.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the "general welfare" bankrupts the country, is it still considered general welfare for the good of the country?

I would think if the people want to bankrupt the nation they may. But I think elected leaders would be duty and honor bound to represent to the people a better way of living.

According to some misinformed people here, if the people wanted to bankrupt the nation, Congress has to and should go along. I disagree and so would the framers. A representative republic does not work that way.

The framers and the founders never agreed to back popular or direct democracy. And never has the American public. I would consider taking up arms against that possibility becoming real.

Yet the congress bankrupting the country, or the gov't exercising too much control over it's citizens is also something folks would take up arms over.

You miss the boat.

The people have recourse against the actions of any particular Congress. It's called elections.

Changing the system we have into a popular or direct democracy would be a revolution. It would over turn most every institution and the balance of powers with checks and balances that has allowed America to exist all these years.

and notice I said 'consider' taking up arms over. You truly are a loser