What do we agree upon?

[nodoginnafight]

I'm playing yank - you certainly don't have to justify anything to ME - your credibility meter is pegged imho.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it.

That's not true. And I did say that some people like amputees are not equipped to climb everest and you found one who did - great. But that's not the samething as proving ANYONE can do it.

But if you'd like, we can discard the whole Mt. analogy. Doesn't matter to me.

You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have

What choice do I have when my government declares war and I disagree with that? What happens if they pass any other law that I disagree with?
Nothing.
The majority calls the shots. If you hold a minority opinion that's just the way it goes.

Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey or which programs their tax dollars will go to. (I personally think that would be an interesting way to write the budget - let people indicate on their tax forms just how much of their taxes they want to go to which programs. The people fund what the people WANT to fund. Interesting idea anyway.)

But until then, if you don't want your tax dollars to go to a particular program, then you have to get the votes to kill that program. If you can't get the votes, your money is going to keep funding the program you find objectionable.

A lot of people who find themselves in that minority position, try to blame it on the media, or corruption, or the ignorance of the majority, or some other rationalization. But they are really just making excuses for their own inability to win the issue.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm sorry - I don't mean to be offensive or anything but this has gotten boring for me. If you'd like maybe we can continue it at another time.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

I'm asking you to prove it is a legitimate role. Promote does not mean provide.

Look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

http://preciousonyx.xanga.com/689520854/to-promote-the-general-welfare-not-what-you-think-it-means/

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

Isn't "In God We Trust" in there somewhere?

God is mentioned in every State Constitutions preamble and in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Ringel05]

It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.

Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.

I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.

But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.

You're missing the concept of: "Where there's a will there's a way." Most use their limitations and obstacles as excuses to hold themselves back. Others keep failing until they succeed. Each person's challenges to achiving their goals is different, some much easier, some hundreds of times harder. Some strive all their lives and never reach their goal but are usually the better for trying, most just float on the current and achive only a casket at the end of their journey.

 

[oreo]

If congress passes this bill with the majority of Americans against it--we will see a sunami roll through the house of representatives in 2010--that will be historic.

With all this dissention--I think what our government needs to do is scrap this plan--go back to the drawing board & come up with several different options (private & public)--then come back to these town halls--discuss in detail what these options are--& if we need to have a general election in order to pick our OWN health care--then so be it.

Anything less than this will spell disaster for these politicians.

 

[Yukon]

Government controlled health care insurance will soon be available to ALL Americans. hahahahahahahaha.......................

 

[nodoginnafight]

sorry cold - apparently there aren't enough threads about healthcare out there and some folks are determined to hijack this thread to discuss their healthcare positions.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh and Maggie - I also agree with you in that I think Democrats are being ill served by Nancy Pelosi - but since I'm not a Democrat and since I don't live in her district, I REALLY don't have a dog in THAT fight.

I think she often seems so very mean-spirited and I think that hurts even worse than her far-left convictions.

I don't live in her district either, far from it, but I've watched her claw her way to the top, not unlike Tom DeLay, with arm-twisting and subtle I won't support yours (bill) unless you support mine in which case you'll be dead anyway...attitude. She is the epitome of why congress isn't trusted. She was elected by her colleagues to her speakership, but trust me, she didn't win it honestly.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh and Maggie - I also agree with you in that I think Democrats are being ill served by Nancy Pelosi - but since I'm not a Democrat and since I don't live in her district, I REALLY don't have a dog in THAT fight.

I think she often seems so very mean-spirited and I think that hurts even worse than her far-left convictions.

I don't live in her district either, far from it, but I've watched her claw her way to the top, not unlike Tom DeLay, with arm-twisting and subtle I won't support yours (bill) unless you support mine in which case you'll be dead anyway...attitude. She is the epitome of why congress isn't trusted. She was elected by her colleagues to her speakership, but trust me, she didn't win it honestly.

There is an old saying, "Nice guys finish last."

But I like to think that they don't finish last, they are just heading for a different finish line.

 

[MaggieMae]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

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

I think it still holds true that under the Welfare to Work rules instituted in the 90's, within the 2-year limitation on receiving welfare, a recipient needs to take some sort of state or local (or in some cases federal) train-up program. Here we call it Vocational Rehabilitation where people can get basic computer training, get certified in carpentry, and even study to take their GED. But they can't just wait it out and sit on their asses for two years. Plus during the time in training, children are provided with either day care or can attend Head Start if they are of age (I think four). Only extreme hardship situations are waived.

The highest level of "abuse" ironically isn't in any social "welfare" program that we've been discussing but by recipients of Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSI) payments. It is difficult for a person to be approved for that, often needing to go a year or more appealing decisions, but with a willing doctor to create a serious disabling condition from, say, a broken leg which will get him into the system, finding those cases of fraud after they're in is almost impossible, mainly because of shortage of manpower to track those recipients. And there are lots 'n lots of them. Just think: A guaranteed $500 cash per month, automatic Medicaid, food stamps, and emergency utility payments. Take four people living in one household all collecting that, plus working under the table off and on, you can see why it's a situation made in heaven for slackers. SSI should NEVER have been tacked on to the Social Security retirement general fund.

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is thinking you can eradicate poverty, it will never happen. There is always going to be those people that just don't want to put forth the effort it takes to get an education, get a job and lead productive lives. The only possible way to minimize the numbers of people living in poverty is to try and break the cycle with the newest generation and it has to start in the schools.

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Believe what you want, but statistics show that the kind of slackers you describe are minimal. Most people who receive food stamps (a huge increase in middle-class families now needing them in just the last year) and most families with children using other government programs are indeed needy. Since you've never applied for government assistance, you have no idea the rigmarole a person is put through BEFORE they are approved--even for food stamps. (And in order to further eliminate abuse of those, they are no longer "stamps" that can be traded for cash for cigarettes or booze, but a magnetic card that when swiped cannot be misused for any unauthorized purchase.)

To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.

And btw, I am NOT a "liberal." Nancy Pelosi is a "liberal" and I think she should be sent packing.

In my opinion you are left of center(maybe not as far on the left as Pelosi) and that would make you a liberal in my book. But I digress, and I would like to see your source for the information you provided. Also you say that those in the system truly are in need? Well I beg to differ. When I see people using food stamps (or in some cases magnetic cards but cards, stamps or whatever it's still welfare) then driving away in a better car than most middle income folks can afford it gives me reason to pause. And then when I see help wanted signs in every fast food joint in town, I wonder why are these people on welfare when there is jobs to be had. The logical and resonable answer is these people do not want to work, it is far easier to let the govt. hand them a check or add money to their govt. issued credit card. Explain to me why any person on welfare would continually bear children? No one has yet been able to answer that question, but perhaps you can.

I've seen random examples like yours many times over the years--the woman using food stamps for potato chips and steaks and driving away in a Caddy. I'm suggesting those are not commonplace situations, but make for great gossip-fests and snickering among people who have never had to worry about where their next meal would come from. It doesn't make for very interesting news coverage talking about all the people out there who DON'T drive away in Escalades after they've paid for their groceries in food stamps, does it...

I could give you examples of what I think is extreme hypocrisy regarding criticism of truly needy people "on the government teet" as it's amusingly called. While watching some silly reality show called "Toddlers & Tiaras" the other night, there were 3 couples (the parents morbidly obese, by the way) who spent thousands of dollars dressing up their babies for fashion shows and spending all their waking hours "training" them for the runway. I had to ask myself which "government teet" was supporting THEM while they indulged in this idiotic fantasy. These were not even lower middle-class people. They were POOR, their homes less than trailer park quality. And they most certainly did not fit the accepted genre of the drug-addicted, fat and black welfare queen dragging 6 younguns around then climbing into an $80,000 vehicle.

 

[MaggieMae]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

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.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

The general welfare clause, found only in the Preamble, has been challenged in the USSC on a few occasions, but it's a gray area that has never been resolved. So Congress continues to make the laws, as reality commands, much of which goes unchallenged. To find the real debate on the subject, you'd need to study the Federalist papers, which I haven't done since college and forgotten most of it anyway. But the SAME arguments we're having here were had way back then--how much government control over individual lives is necessary to maintain the "pursuit of happiness."

 

[MaggieMae]

It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.

Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.

I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.

But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.

You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have when the govt. takes their taxes and gives it to poor people most of which are able bodied Americans. I'm not agains thelping people, I'm against govt. interference and intrusion. Every community can take care of it's own when folks are hit by hard times, it is not the govt.'s. job.

You said an amputee wouldn't be able to climb Mt Everest because of phyical limitations. I proved you wrong and that's that. Get over it already! I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it. Naturally not everyone is determined to climb a silly mountain, me included. You are only limited by your imagination and determination.

I'm sorry, but whenever I see the argument being made that someone is being taxed to support something he or she doesn't, I see red. I get taxed for some multi-million dollar defense department boondoggle that goes belly up. People who own homes pay ALL the taxes for ALL children to go to school. And on and on it goes. THAT'S WHAT TAXES ARE FOR. They do not separate out the tax bills thusly -- Well, let's see now. Joe doesn't have kids in school, so he shouldn't pay for Bob's kids to go to school. Take $3,000 from Joe's column and put it in Bob's column. Bob's son works for Lockheed and wants that dud of a plane built so he can keep working, but Joe mows lawns and doesn't care about aircraft at all, let alone ones that don't fly right. So take $10,000 from Bob's column and put it in Joe's.

Get it?

 

[MaggieMae]

I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it.

That's not true. And I did say that some people like amputees are not equipped to climb everest and you found one who did - great. But that's not the samething as proving ANYONE can do it.

But if you'd like, we can discard the whole Mt. analogy. Doesn't matter to me.

You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have

What choice do I have when my government declares war and I disagree with that? What happens if they pass any other law that I disagree with?
Nothing.
The majority calls the shots. If you hold a minority opinion that's just the way it goes.

Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey or which programs their tax dollars will go to. (I personally think that would be an interesting way to write the budget - let people indicate on their tax forms just how much of their taxes they want to go to which programs. The people fund what the people WANT to fund. Interesting idea anyway.)

But until then, if you don't want your tax dollars to go to a particular program, then you have to get the votes to kill that program. If you can't get the votes, your money is going to keep funding the program you find objectionable.

A lot of people who find themselves in that minority position, try to blame it on the media, or corruption, or the ignorance of the majority, or some other rationalization. But they are really just making excuses for their own inability to win the issue.

Looks like we're "channeling" each other, Nodog!!

 

[MaggieMae]

If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

I'm asking you to prove it is a legitimate role. Promote does not mean provide.

Look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

http://preciousonyx.xanga.com/689520854/to-promote-the-general-welfare-not-what-you-think-it-means/

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)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Believe what you want, but statistics show that the kind of slackers you describe are minimal. Most people who receive food stamps (a huge increase in middle-class families now needing them in just the last year) and most families with children using other government programs are indeed needy. Since you've never applied for government assistance, you have no idea the rigmarole a person is put through BEFORE they are approved--even for food stamps. (And in order to further eliminate abuse of those, they are no longer "stamps" that can be traded for cash for cigarettes or booze, but a magnetic card that when swiped cannot be misused for any unauthorized purchase.)

To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.

And btw, I am NOT a "liberal." Nancy Pelosi is a "liberal" and I think she should be sent packing.

In my opinion you are left of center(maybe not as far on the left as Pelosi) and that would make you a liberal in my book. But I digress, and I would like to see your source for the information you provided. Also you say that those in the system truly are in need? Well I beg to differ. When I see people using food stamps (or in some cases magnetic cards but cards, stamps or whatever it's still welfare) then driving away in a better car than most middle income folks can afford it gives me reason to pause. And then when I see help wanted signs in every fast food joint in town, I wonder why are these people on welfare when there is jobs to be had. The logical and resonable answer is these people do not want to work, it is far easier to let the govt. hand them a check or add money to their govt. issued credit card. Explain to me why any person on welfare would continually bear children? No one has yet been able to answer that question, but perhaps you can.

I've seen random examples like yours many times over the years--the woman using food stamps for potato chips and steaks and driving away in a Caddy. I'm suggesting those are not commonplace situations, but make for great gossip-fests and snickering among people who have never had to worry about where their next meal would come from. It doesn't make for very interesting news coverage talking about all the people out there who DON'T drive away in Escalades after they've paid for their groceries in food stamps, does it...

I could give you examples of what I think is extreme hypocrisy regarding criticism of truly needy people "on the government teet" as it's amusingly called. While watching some silly reality show called "Toddlers & Tiaras" the other night, there were 3 couples (the parents morbidly obese, by the way) who spent thousands of dollars dressing up their babies for fashion shows and spending all their waking hours "training" them for the runway. I had to ask myself which "government teet" was supporting THEM while they indulged in this idiotic fantasy. These were not even lower middle-class people. They were POOR, their homes less than trailer park quality. And they most certainly did not fit the accepted genre of the drug-addicted, fat and black welfare queen dragging 6 younguns around then climbing into an $80,000 vehicle.

I believe that kind of abuse is more common than most would like to acknowledge.

But since you do acknowledge the system is corrupt, why would you want to continue it?

 

[MaggieMae]

It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.

Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.

I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.

But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.

You're missing the concept of: "Where there's a will there's a way." Most use their limitations and obstacles as excuses to hold themselves back. Others keep failing until they succeed. Each person's challenges to achiving their goals is different, some much easier, some hundreds of times harder. Some strive all their lives and never reach their goal but are usually the better for trying, most just float on the current and achive only a casket at the end of their journey.

Good points. And some find that they really can't handle "success" at all. If a person's genetically inclined emotional level is such that he winces at the slightest criticism, he won't get very far in this world. If his ego is over the top, his days in the sunshine are temporary because average people don't tolerate egotists for long. Some just get stuck in neutral or reach the epitome of their intelligence level (the Peter Principle).