The Cost of War - $752 Billion

[mattskramer]

Government -is- supposed to provide security; it is -not- supposed to provide food.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As I see it, the government is to do a little bit to be sure that people do not starve to death.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As I see it, the government is to do a little bit to be sure that people do not starve to death.

Provide and promote are different words with different meanings.

Government exists to protect your rights, not provide you the means to exercise them.

 

[mattskramer]

Provide and promote are different words with different meanings.

Government exists to protect your rights, not provide you the means to exercise them.

How does one promote without providing for in the time of dire need? “I see you there in the street starving to death. Get up off your feet and go get some food for yourself. I’ll be right behind you, cheering you on. Go get ‘en tiger! Yeah. You can do it. Uh. Keep crawling. You can do it!”

 

[jreeves]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As I see it, the government is to do a little bit to be sure that people do not starve to death.

Before the New Deal Matt how much did the US government spend for social programs? If the framers of the Constitution meant what you say, don't you think they would have at least spent a little money on social programs?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does one promote without providing for in the time of dire need?

Look up the definition of the words. That will help.

 

[jillian]

Before the New Deal Matt how much did the US government spend for social programs? If the framers of the Constitution meant what you say, don't you think they would have at least spent a little money on social programs?

That was an agrarian society... different issues arose after industrialization.

And your point re the New Deal???

It was upheld by the Court. It's constitutionality is the law of the land. The right has hated it ever since and has been trying to get rid of it through every door possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That was an agrarian society... different issues arose after industrialization.

There were poor and old and sick people before 1932. Lots of them.

And, none of that changes the fact that "provide" and "promote" mean different things.

It was upheld by the Court. It's constitutionality is the law of the land.

So was the 2000 election.

The right has hated it ever since and has been trying to get rid of it through every door possible.

As is their right.

 

[jillian]

The 2000 election?!?!?!



And we've had to live with the ramifications of that decision ever since.

Almost 4,000 of our troops dead.

Send a note to their moms telling them how the Supreme Court helped them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2000 election?!?!?!

And we've had to live with the ramifications of that decision ever since.
Almost 4,000 of our troops dead.
Send a note to their moms telling them how the Supreme Court helped them.

You've missed the point.
Deliberately, no doubt.

 

[jillian]

You've missed the point.
Deliberately, no doubt.

Actually, no I didn't.

Bush v Gore ISN'T the law of the land. The Supreme Court, led by the ethically challenged hunting buddy of one of the beneficiaries of the ruling, specifically held that it has no value as precedent in any other case.

Try again. And try sticking to the subject. Maybe you'll get more interesting answers from me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, no I didn't.
Bush v Gore ISN'T the law of the land.

It is, every bit as much as the decisions that OK'd the New Deal.

Of course, since YOU dont like the ruling, it's -different- than the rulings you DO like.