What do we agree upon?

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned all the historic events that led up to extreme poverty (especially poverty pockets), nor did they envision the complete breakdown of the family as an institution, where we took care of our own until they died.

There is way too much in the Constitution that was either intentionally left ambiguous or omitted, since the framers were also smart enough to know that time wouldn't stand still and they really had no clue what the future would hold for modern societies. I get very tired of listing to the "Constitution" being used as a crutch. It was a set of basic common laws and guidelines, period.

You truly believe extreme poverty is a something new? The framers did expect us to take care of ourselves until we died, no where in the constitution does it say, when you get too old or are unable to work we (the govt.) will provide for you.
I thought that was my point, adding only that they had no idea how out of control poverty would become.

The constitution is not a crutch, it's what governs this country. This country would not be the country it is without it. I think it's people like you that want to interpret the constitution to fit your agenda. the general welfare clause is probably the most misinterpreted language in the constitution.
No, it should not be a crutch. But it seems these days anytime someone disagrees with some public policy they shout that IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Well lots of stuff isn't. This is reality, 200+ years later.

The General Welfare Clause is the Enemy not the Sixteenth Amendment By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty

...

You're assuming poverty can be controlled. It can't when you have a govt. program that's enabling people to sit on their ass and do nothing while the govt. provides for them. That does nothing to alleviate poverty, it only encourages the second generation to follow in the footsteps of the first...etc..

I think nodog touched on this in one of his post about "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime," the welfare program is giving people fish and not teaching them to fish for themselves.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ah, but Jefferson said "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." (3/31/1809)

He's entitled to his opinion. But he didn't add that to the constitution....now did he?

I'm guessing you're pro-choice.

There you go again... Using the Constitution to bump your personal agenda. You might conclude that both Jefferson and Madison had extensive discussions over the practical application of many of the clauses in the Constitution AFTER it had been signed. And it remains to this day why there is a Supreme Court to decide upon the most contentious.

The constitution is the foundation of this country, to not use it the way it's intended is treasonous. I'm sorry, but I think you are utterly and completely misguided. Whatever discussion Jefferson and Madison had after the constitution was written had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court was mandated by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which reads:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.

One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.

Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.

Immie

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times. You show me anywhere in the constitution that states the govt. will provide for you when you fall on hard times.

You do recognise that poor people with NOTHING to lose make for VERY dangerous people. Part of the reason for social services is to keep society SAFE from DESPERATE PEOPLE.

No I don't buy that bullshit for a minute. Law enforcement officials is what keeps people safe from crime, not food stamps.

Stop drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just like Lone beleives that people motivated enough to accomplish ANYTHING we can bring this post back to its intended purpose..........To demonstrate that we can ALL find things to agree upon. With that in mind I ask that people from BOTH sides of the aisle give examples of issues where they differ from their own political party.

That's the problem, thinking you have to be either one party or the other. Why not be an individual thinker and vote your conscious and not a party line.

 

[VaYank5150]

Why not be an individual thinker and vote your conscious and not a party line.

We walk among you. We are called Independents.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why not be an individual thinker and vote your conscious and not a party line.

We walk among you. We are called Independents.

That's NOT what I've been called on these boards.

 

[VaYank5150]

That's NOT what I've been called on these boards.

I have found so far, these boards to be even more hyper-partisan than the MSNBC ones. However, just because I stand behind our President and actually want to give him a chance to succeed, I am a "LibNut" here. Go figure.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What do expect from message boards that run ads for Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter newsletters? I can only imagine that these hyper-right radicals are frothing at the mouth because some moderates have appeared and are now calling them on the BS after they have enjoyed unquestioned hypocricy for so long.

 

[VaYank5150]

I can only imagine that these hyper-right radicals are frothing at the mouth because some moderates have appeared and are now calling them on the BS after they have enjoyed unquestioned hypocricy for so long.

That's what I have never understood. I thought these types of message boards were designed with debate in mind? Dissenting views provided in a good mannered fashion are a GOOD thing, right?

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's what I have never understood. I thought these types of message boards were designed with debate in mind? Dissenting views provided in a good mannered fashion are a GOOD thing, right?

That's MY opinion. But's it's not hard to spot the folks who are not here for that. They are here to bolster their sagging ego by flaming out and generally trying to act superior. And some are here to vent because their wife held out on 'em last night.

Lots of different reasons people show up here.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's NOT what I've been called on these boards.

I have found so far, these boards to be even more hyper-partisan than the MSNBC ones. However, just because I stand behind our President and actually want to give him a chance to succeed, I am a "LibNut" here. Go figure.

Perhaps it's because the man you're standing behind is a liberal.

 

[Immanuel]

What do expect from message boards that run ads for Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter newsletters? I can only imagine that these hyper-right radicals are frothing at the mouth because some moderates have appeared and are now calling them on the BS after they have enjoyed unquestioned hypocricy for so long.

What ads?

Oh, the ones that are on the banner. Hehe, I never even notice them... well, except for that blond for Evony... she catches my attention every now and then.

I can only imagine that these hyper-right radicals are frothing at the mouth because some moderates have appeared and are now calling them on the BS after they have enjoyed unquestioned hypocricy for so long.

That's what I have never understood. I thought these types of message boards were designed with debate in mind? Dissenting views provided in a good mannered fashion are a GOOD thing, right?

I really enjoy the discussions that go on especially the ones with people with whom I disagree, but quite frankly (unless, I am mistaking you with another new comer) at first, I thought you were one of those name callers who wouldn't hold a friendly discussion with anyone that did not agree with you. Didn't you come in screaming at everyone that didn't approve of the Healthcare bill being forced down our throats? If not, I am sorry, if I have confused you with another.

I'm beginning to warm up to you as a poster and I pray that you won't let the ultra right radicals, such as myself, run you off. You seem to be intelligent and at least are beginning to seem like you want to discuss things.

Anyway, it is nice to have people on the board that actually want to discuss things in a friendly manner. I hope you stick around.

Immie

 

[nodoginnafight]

What do expect from message boards that run ads for Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter newsletters? I can only imagine that these hyper-right radicals are frothing at the mouth because some moderates have appeared and are now calling them on the BS after they have enjoyed unquestioned hypocricy for so long.

What ads?

Oh, the ones that are on the banner. Hehe, I never even notice them... well, except for that blond for Evony... she catches my attention every now and then.

Immie

I mean, it gave ME the impression the first time I came here that this was a radical right hangout. Why else would folks like that pay for advertising here? THEY obviously think they have their target audience here.

But I'm new here - I'll just let it play out and make my own decisions about individuals as I encounter them.

 

[VaYank5150]

Perhaps it's because the man you're standing behind is a liberal.

So, because I choose to support our President, who happens to be a liberal, I am classified as a libnut? Does this logic REALLY make sense to you?

 

[Immanuel]

I mean, it gave ME the impression the first time I came here that this was a radical right hangout. Why else would folks like that pay for advertising here? THEY obviously think they have their target audience here.

But I'm new here - I'll just let it play out and make my own decisions about individuals as I encounter them.

Honestly, I don't know how the banner advertising works. I have noticed that whatever program Gunny is using at the moment the ads seem to fit with the discussion. For instance, if we are discussing healthcare, the banners that appear seem to have something to do with healthcare or the current bills being dicussed.

How the banners are chosen, or who does it, I don't have a clue.

Immie

 

[nodoginnafight]

You mean the ads within the threads? I don't know about those, I was talking about the banners on the pages.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not sure which ones you mean, nodog, but I would not be surprised if we were not talking about the same ads. When I hit the reply button for this post, the ad on the banner of the page I was on, was for "Progressive.com". It didn't fit this thread, but then, what does? Bring back the Evony lady! At least she calls me "Lord".

Immie

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Looks like I got most of my REP back.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I have to go to work but PLEASE keep this thread going. I have really liked so many of the posts here even Lone Star has made some great points. I wish you all a wonderfull day.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just like Lone beleives that people motivated enough to accomplish ANYTHING we can bring this post back to its intended purpose..........To demonstrate that we can ALL find things to agree upon. With that in mind I ask that people from BOTH sides of the aisle give examples of issues where they differ from their own political party.

--Capitalism, free markets, big tax breaks for small businesses (under 200 employees).

--[Limited] private accounts set up using a portion of FICA taxes up to an earnings limit of $200,000. Thereafter, a person who earns more must start paying into Social Security at the established calculated rate, rather than ending the payroll tax at a certain limit. When a person retires, his basic benefit is calculated using the average
monthly earnings during the 35 years in which he earned the most. This means that if someone reaches the current earnings limit of $102,000 he no longer is required to pay into Social Security (only Medicare), but if he then goes on to become a millionnaire, he also is not obligated to pay anything further into the system. Somehow that seems backwards. My logic is that wealthy people can afford to pay into the system that will also greatly reward them more when they retire. So why shouldn't they?

--Fair tax system (as opposed to flat tax) which would replace federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. I'm leaning in this direction because it would seem to eliminate thousands of legal and illegal loopholes with one fell swoop. The only potential problem would be a drop in revenue as any new tax system works out kinks, which I'm not sure is worth the risk anytime soon.

There are probably others, but that's enough for now.