Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So now you're going to be like Jesus and advocate being a homeless bum?Trouble is, and where you fail, is that no one is forced to be gainfully employed.
You can choose to make all your income off of investments
...or you could be a housewife.
Lets take the health care bill, and assume that I'm a Republican church goer. I should be in favor of such a bill because it is for the "General Welfare of the people of the US" and it jives with what the bible teaches. Unemployment benefits extensions, does it fit the general welfare clause, yes and you can reconcile it with the bible as well.
What I'm saying is... that if all these "compassionate conservatives", and "Family Values" politicians actually believe in what they say they do. When it comes down to what actually fits in the "General Welfare" clause, it should be a no brainer.
You're still confused. This is not a republican church goer partisan argument. This is a constitutional argument. Your argument is that government should do what the church does and that republicans should somehow support government taking care of people. Your argument is purely driven by emotion and personal opinion, not the law.
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.
Aside from the war on drugs, none of those violate anyone's liberty.See the minimum wage, social security, Obamacare, the war on drugs, ...
Actually? The War on drugs *IS* a violation of Liberty...or shall we go through Prohibition again? And WHY hasn't the Congress Amended the Constitution to reflect the 'War On Drugs'?
No one is preventing you from saving for retirement. You can certainly find a job paying less than minimum wage...try babysitting or waitressing.Aside from the war on drugs, none of those violate anyone's liberty.
I'm not free to plan and save for my retirement and bear the consequences, that has nothing to do with individual liberty?
I am not free to take a job for under $7.20, the government says it's their call, not mine.
You're clueless if you don't see any infringement on Obamacare
The war on drugs you don't even understand. The drugs are the scratch on the surface, the invasion of my privacy fighting it without any warrant is extreme.
You're so lost in government you don't even know what personal liberty is.
There is no constitutional infringement with "obamacare."
What a moron you are...I agree with you on the war on drugs and you pretend I didn't.
Dismissed.
You're still confused. This is not a republican church goer partisan argument. This is a constitutional argument. Your argument is that government should do what the church does and that republicans should somehow support government taking care of people. Your argument is purely driven by emotion and personal opinion, not the law.
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.
You lose your argument at the precise moment you state......"Anyone who believes in the bible"........
This is a constitutional argument. The bible has no place in this argument.
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.
You lose your argument at the precise moment you state......"Anyone who believes in the bible"........
This is a constitutional argument. The bible has no place in this argument.
Tell that to The T. He might listen to you.
I didn't read all that... But I hope you realize Madison is hardly the person you want to be quoting. His views were quite incompatible with Democracy as we understand it today.
I didn't read all that... But I hope you realize Madison is hardly the person you want to be quoting. His views were quite incompatible with Democracy as we understand it today.
You are Retarded.
I find it more than just a little bit ironic that people who claim to be Jeffersonian supporters of state rights and a small central government cite the Federalist papers, written mostly be Hamilton, the FF's most ardent advocate of a strong central government, to support their alleged Jeffersonion viewpoint.
Back to the topic......if the GW clause was about providing welfare to individuals then why wasn't that done when our nation was founded?
This is comical. Everyone has a different opinion of what "general welfare" means, yet the majority of people, to include politicians, would have us believe they are occupying a pew at the local church on Sunday. I wonder how the Republicans who are against welfare justify their actions to their faith.
Most will sit and try to figure out what the constitution means by "General Welfare" yet give less than two shits what their bible says about general welfare.
Don't you believe in "separation of church and state"? Are you confused?
The "general welfare" clause has nothign to do with the needs of individuals. Welfare or "relief" is not what the "welfare clause: is about.
Lets take the health care bill, and assume that I'm a Republican church goer. I should be in favor of such a bill because it is for the "General Welfare of the people of the US" and it jives with what the bible teaches. Unemployment benefits extensions, does it fit the general welfare clause, yes and you can reconcile it with the bible as well.
What I'm saying is... that if all these "compassionate conservatives", and "Family Values" politicians actually believe in what they say they do. When it comes down to what actually fits in the "General Welfare" clause, it should be a no brainer.
You're still confused. This is not a republican church goer partisan argument. This is a constitutional argument. Your argument is that government should do what the church does and that republicans should somehow support government taking care of people. Your argument is purely driven by emotion and personal opinion, not the law.
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.
Which benefits the general welfare. In that particular instance it benefits the country by not having poor, diseased, robbing, homeless people around every corner bringing down the property taxes and contributing nothing to the economy.At least with the progressive tax system, there is an amendment authorizing income taxes, so the debate has to be made in that context.No, it doesn't.
But welfare and other redistribution programs just cannot be justified under "General Welfare" because they are not not "general welfare." They are benefiting some citizens at the expense of others.
Aside from the war on drugs, none of those violate anyone's liberty.See the minimum wage, social security, Obamacare, the war on drugs, ...Read Jefferson's explanation again.
The general welfare clause would not allow the government to do something that violated someone's liberty. See the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2.
During the Vietnam war, our gvt began spending more on our defense budget than on the 'general welfare' of our citizens.....our population became infuriated with this...all the tv shows were making skits and comments on it....even shows like Laugh In....it was a part of the whole fury against the war....
So President Johnson took measures to MASK the percentage of income taxes being spent on Vietnam....and he moved Social Security in to the gvt's overall budget, even though no income taxes went towards it....
By doing this, the percentage of what was being spent on defense, got reduced over night with SS in this budget as well....
HE screwed us over...
Social Security surplus monies are now being spent on our defense budget.
General Welfare spending WAS WHAT the income tax payers expected the majority of their tax monies to go to....NOT towards a defense budget/ or military industrial complex, from here to kingdom come!
MY MY how things have changed.....
That's not the problem in my opinion. The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it. Obama and Pelosi took money from Medicare right when the baby boomers are ready to retire. That's insane.
Healthcare didnt make us broke. Wallstreet did. You have a fed and government who are basically run by wall street. We paid for their greed.
That's not the problem in my opinion. The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it. Obama and Pelosi took money from Medicare right when the baby boomers are ready to retire. That's insane.
Healthcare didnt make us broke. Wallstreet did. You have a fed and government who are basically run by wall street. We paid for their greed.
So why do you want to give that Government more control over your life???
That's not the problem in my opinion. The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it. Obama and Pelosi took money from Medicare right when the baby boomers are ready to retire. That's insane.
Healthcare didnt make us broke. Wallstreet did. You have a fed and government who are basically run by wall street. We paid for their greed.
So why do you want to give that Government more control over your life???
You lose your argument at the precise moment you state......"Anyone who believes in the bible"........
This is a constitutional argument. The bible has no place in this argument.
Tell that to The T. He might listen to you.
Back to the topic......if the GW clause was about providing welfare to individuals then why wasn't that done when our nation was founded? it's a stupid argument.
