What does America stand for? and what makes an American Patriot?

[PredFan]

What does America stand for?

Freedom, liberty, prosperity.

What makes a patriot?

A person who loves their country.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Neo-liberalism has destroyed America's collective consciousness. We have been reduced to a bunch of individuals competing with one another in the marketplace. I don't think America has any principles by which we can all unite.

Or maybe it's destroyed something you want, but you don't get everything you want.

Well, I already stated that I thought America's collective consciousness was destroyed. If that doesn't satisfy you then perhaps you ought to tell me what it is I want.

What I meant was that different people want different things. You want one thing, you want the country to go in one direction, but the US is a semi-democracy and as such other people have other views.

You say that there aren't any principles with which the people can unite. Hardly surprising with the partisan politics and the rich controlling politics.

Until the people take politics back from the rich, nothing will change. But that doesn't mean it'll go the way you want it.

The problem is, I haven’t found any views by the Founders in writing our Constitution where it was the duty of the rich to cover for the failures and short comings of others. If we believe in what they wrote about individual liberty and individual pursuits, that means we have to accept failure and the lessons that are then utilized in determining your own decisions to move forward. The left wants to take personal responsibility and hand that over to the federal government, as if someone thousands of miles away knows what my personal interests are and what I need. The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole, they did not include an amendment or “right” where it’s the duty of government to provide and support for those who refuse to provide for themselves. This idea that government MUST provide for my personal needs is simply not what the Founders wrote about and signed, so let’s not look to the rich to bail out every bad decision or lack of educational skill or pursuit the individual didn’t feel the need to work for. Our own decisions and personal choices is a direct result of our own drive to perseverance (or lack there of) in determining how successful we become. Individual liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness is not a government provision but an individual responsibility. Personal freedom and “liberty” comes with an acceptance of individual choices.

You say all this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you say it based on government for the rich. The Founders didn't necessarily intend for the situation to become like this. Yes, the rich controlled politics way back when, but then the masses didn't have an education. They put in place things for the people to be able to change the Constitution to make it fit the times, this hasn't been done.

I'm not talking about government providing everything, I'm talking about THE PEOPLE being in control of their own country.

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole

The constitution is a document that was intended to provide the framework for the governance of the collective whole by the collective whole.

When you start with a faulty premise you end with faulty conclusions.

The Constitution is a document to provide the framework of government, confining each branch within their own individual but equal roles to represent the people through the power of the people. We the people over government, not government dictating ITS will over we the people.

 

[Tehon]

The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole

The constitution is a document that was intended to provide the framework for the governance of the collective whole by the collective whole.

When you start with a faulty premise you end with faulty conclusions.

The Constitution is a document to provide the framework of government, confining each branch within their own individual but equal roles to represent the people through the power of the people. We the people over government, not government dictating ITS will over we the people.

Are you suggesting that government isn't responsive to the will of the people? Or just whining that you are in a minority as it relates to welfare concerns?

 

[Billo_Really]

Neo-liberalism has destroyed America's collective consciousness. We have been reduced to a bunch of individuals competing with one another in the marketplace.

I agree with that.

I don't think America has any principles by which we can all unite.

I don't want to agree with that.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole

The constitution is a document that was intended to provide the framework for the governance of the collective whole by the collective whole.

When you start with a faulty premise you end with faulty conclusions.

The Constitution is a document to provide the framework of government, confining each branch within their own individual but equal roles to represent the people through the power of the people. We the people over government, not government dictating ITS will over we the people.

Are you suggesting that government isn't responsive to the will of the people? Or just whining that you are in a minority as it relates to welfare concerns?

I’m stating the fact the Constitution of the Founders confined government to a limited role with limited interference into the individual liberties and decisions surrounding their own choices and pursuits. They did not support, through the documents and quotes they left behind, a government that takes the wealth from one class and offers it to help another to make up for another’s inability to be just as successful. You are always free to convince yourself that you are in the majority with regards to the view of welfare, I’m only stating the original intent as under our Constitution.

 

[Tehon]

They (founding fathers) did not support, through the documents and quotes they left behind, a government that takes the wealth from one class and offers it to help another to make up for another’s inability to be just as successful.

They are all long dead now. They left behind the framework for a government of, by and for the people. The limitations they placed on government are defined in the Bill of Rights. I don't see anything there that would support your contention.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

They (founding fathers) did not support, through the documents and quotes they left behind, a government that takes the wealth from one class and offers it to help another to make up for another’s inability to be just as successful.

They are all long dead now. They left behind the framework for a government of, by and for the people. The limitations they placed on government are defined in the Bill of Rights. I don't see anything there that would support your contention.

It’s really not at all hard to do

“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”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

How do you secure the blessings of liberty, if you believe it’s the role of Washington DC to provide your healthcare, provide welfare (clearly that’s not what is cited above as their intent). The “blessings of Liberty” and freedom to your own “pursuit of happiness” means making choices through responsibility to your own individual decisions of what you yourself personally need. Healthcare is a European concept, not a Constitutional right or entitlement.

 

[Tehon]

How do you secure the blessings of liberty, if you believe it’s the role of Washington DC to provide your healthcare, provide welfare (clearly that’s not what is cited above as their intent).

They secured our blessings of liberty by creating the federal government with powers granted by the constitution. It says so right in the preamble. I don't see anything about personal responsibility or pursuit of happiness contained in that passage. You're making that shit up.

 

[Tehon]

How do you secure the blessings of liberty, if you believe it’s the role of Washington DC to provide your healthcare, provide welfare (clearly that’s not what is cited above as their intent).

They secured our blessings of liberty by creating the federal government with powers granted by the constitution. It says so right in the preamble. I don't see anything about personal responsibility or pursuit of happiness contained in that passage. You're making that shit up.

John Locke was a fairly important philosopher to the founding of our country. I think he sums up what it means to secure our liberty in this passage from Second Treatise of Civil Government.

THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or maybe it's destroyed something you want, but you don't get everything you want.

Well, I already stated that I thought America's collective consciousness was destroyed. If that doesn't satisfy you then perhaps you ought to tell me what it is I want.

What I meant was that different people want different things. You want one thing, you want the country to go in one direction, but the US is a semi-democracy and as such other people have other views.

You say that there aren't any principles with which the people can unite. Hardly surprising with the partisan politics and the rich controlling politics.

Until the people take politics back from the rich, nothing will change. But that doesn't mean it'll go the way you want it.

The problem is, I haven’t found any views by the Founders in writing our Constitution where it was the duty of the rich to cover for the failures and short comings of others. If we believe in what they wrote about individual liberty and individual pursuits, that means we have to accept failure and the lessons that are then utilized in determining your own decisions to move forward. The left wants to take personal responsibility and hand that over to the federal government, as if someone thousands of miles away knows what my personal interests are and what I need. The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole, they did not include an amendment or “right” where it’s the duty of government to provide and support for those who refuse to provide for themselves. This idea that government MUST provide for my personal needs is simply not what the Founders wrote about and signed, so let’s not look to the rich to bail out every bad decision or lack of educational skill or pursuit the individual didn’t feel the need to work for. Our own decisions and personal choices is a direct result of our own drive to perseverance (or lack there of) in determining how successful we become. Individual liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness is not a government provision but an individual responsibility. Personal freedom and “liberty” comes with an acceptance of individual choices.

You say all this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you say it based on government for the rich. The Founders didn't necessarily intend for the situation to become like this. Yes, the rich controlled politics way back when, but then the masses didn't have an education. They put in place things for the people to be able to change the Constitution to make it fit the times, this hasn't been done.

I'm not talking about government providing everything, I'm talking about THE PEOPLE being in control of their own country.

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well, I already stated that I thought America's collective consciousness was destroyed. If that doesn't satisfy you then perhaps you ought to tell me what it is I want.

What I meant was that different people want different things. You want one thing, you want the country to go in one direction, but the US is a semi-democracy and as such other people have other views.

You say that there aren't any principles with which the people can unite. Hardly surprising with the partisan politics and the rich controlling politics.

Until the people take politics back from the rich, nothing will change. But that doesn't mean it'll go the way you want it.

The problem is, I haven’t found any views by the Founders in writing our Constitution where it was the duty of the rich to cover for the failures and short comings of others. If we believe in what they wrote about individual liberty and individual pursuits, that means we have to accept failure and the lessons that are then utilized in determining your own decisions to move forward. The left wants to take personal responsibility and hand that over to the federal government, as if someone thousands of miles away knows what my personal interests are and what I need. The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole, they did not include an amendment or “right” where it’s the duty of government to provide and support for those who refuse to provide for themselves. This idea that government MUST provide for my personal needs is simply not what the Founders wrote about and signed, so let’s not look to the rich to bail out every bad decision or lack of educational skill or pursuit the individual didn’t feel the need to work for. Our own decisions and personal choices is a direct result of our own drive to perseverance (or lack there of) in determining how successful we become. Individual liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness is not a government provision but an individual responsibility. Personal freedom and “liberty” comes with an acceptance of individual choices.

You say all this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you say it based on government for the rich. The Founders didn't necessarily intend for the situation to become like this. Yes, the rich controlled politics way back when, but then the masses didn't have an education. They put in place things for the people to be able to change the Constitution to make it fit the times, this hasn't been done.

I'm not talking about government providing everything, I'm talking about THE PEOPLE being in control of their own country.

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

 

[Tehon]

It’s really not at all hard to do

“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”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

Indeed. How unfortunate for you that the constitution gives congress the authority to collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the country.

Section. 8.
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;

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It’s really not at all hard to do

“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”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

Indeed. How unfortunate for you that the constitution gives congress the authority to collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the country.

Section. 8.
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;

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the role to provide welfare, but it’s interesting how we have a “commerce clause” that provides the structure for promoting goods and services between the states . Promoting the general welfare, and providing a welfare system and Health Care, are two totally different things.

Again, Hamilton (the quote you overlooked) believed in a two government system so
“If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by EITHER (that means Federal or State Government by the way), they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,”

A government system that sees the collective needs of all within its countries boundary, as opposed to the need of a State / Federal hierarchical government, is known as a national system of government NOT the Constitutional system our Founders established.

Understand the difference.

 

[Tehon]

It’s really not at all hard to do

“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”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

Indeed. How unfortunate for you that the constitution gives congress the authority to collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the country.

Section. 8.
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;

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the role to provide welfare, but it’s interesting how we have a “commerce clause” that provides the structure for promoting goods and services between the states . Promoting the general welfare, and providing a welfare system and Health Care, are two totally different things.

Again, Hamilton (the quote you overlooked) believed in a two government system so
“If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by EITHER (that means Federal or State Government by the way), they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,”

A government system that sees the collective needs of all within its countries boundary, as opposed to the need of a State / Federal hierarchical government, is known as a national system of government NOT the Constitutional system our Founders established.

Understand the difference.

I'm sympathetic to your beliefs.

Jefferson spelled out your position quite well in his objection to the creation of the First National Bank. Interestingly enough he lost the debate to Hamilton who got his bank, however short lived.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I meant was that different people want different things. You want one thing, you want the country to go in one direction, but the US is a semi-democracy and as such other people have other views.

You say that there aren't any principles with which the people can unite. Hardly surprising with the partisan politics and the rich controlling politics.

Until the people take politics back from the rich, nothing will change. But that doesn't mean it'll go the way you want it.

The problem is, I haven’t found any views by the Founders in writing our Constitution where it was the duty of the rich to cover for the failures and short comings of others. If we believe in what they wrote about individual liberty and individual pursuits, that means we have to accept failure and the lessons that are then utilized in determining your own decisions to move forward. The left wants to take personal responsibility and hand that over to the federal government, as if someone thousands of miles away knows what my personal interests are and what I need. The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole, they did not include an amendment or “right” where it’s the duty of government to provide and support for those who refuse to provide for themselves. This idea that government MUST provide for my personal needs is simply not what the Founders wrote about and signed, so let’s not look to the rich to bail out every bad decision or lack of educational skill or pursuit the individual didn’t feel the need to work for. Our own decisions and personal choices is a direct result of our own drive to perseverance (or lack there of) in determining how successful we become. Individual liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness is not a government provision but an individual responsibility. Personal freedom and “liberty” comes with an acceptance of individual choices.

You say all this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you say it based on government for the rich. The Founders didn't necessarily intend for the situation to become like this. Yes, the rich controlled politics way back when, but then the masses didn't have an education. They put in place things for the people to be able to change the Constitution to make it fit the times, this hasn't been done.

I'm not talking about government providing everything, I'm talking about THE PEOPLE being in control of their own country.

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It’s really not at all hard to do

“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”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

Indeed. How unfortunate for you that the constitution gives congress the authority to collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the country.

Section. 8.
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;

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the role to provide welfare, but it’s interesting how we have a “commerce clause” that provides the structure for promoting goods and services between the states . Promoting the general welfare, and providing a welfare system and Health Care, are two totally different things.

Again, Hamilton (the quote you overlooked) believed in a two government system so
“If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by EITHER (that means Federal or State Government by the way), they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,”

A government system that sees the collective needs of all within its countries boundary, as opposed to the need of a State / Federal hierarchical government, is known as a national system of government NOT the Constitutional system our Founders established.

Understand the difference.

You think there's a difference. The problem is that the Constitution can be interpreted, especially when it's so vague.

"general welfare" is as vague as it comes. The federal govt has the power to raise taxes for the general welfare, if they have the taxing power they can also assume they have the legislative power to make laws based on welfare too.

 

[John Shaw]

The IDEA of America used to be about this, at its very core; that everyone have a fair chance to get what they want out of life.

Of course, we never lived up to that idea. And I don't think we ever will.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The problem is, I haven’t found any views by the Founders in writing our Constitution where it was the duty of the rich to cover for the failures and short comings of others. If we believe in what they wrote about individual liberty and individual pursuits, that means we have to accept failure and the lessons that are then utilized in determining your own decisions to move forward. The left wants to take personal responsibility and hand that over to the federal government, as if someone thousands of miles away knows what my personal interests are and what I need. The founders did not write a Constitution based on the government providing for the collective whole, they did not include an amendment or “right” where it’s the duty of government to provide and support for those who refuse to provide for themselves. This idea that government MUST provide for my personal needs is simply not what the Founders wrote about and signed, so let’s not look to the rich to bail out every bad decision or lack of educational skill or pursuit the individual didn’t feel the need to work for. Our own decisions and personal choices is a direct result of our own drive to perseverance (or lack there of) in determining how successful we become. Individual liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness is not a government provision but an individual responsibility. Personal freedom and “liberty” comes with an acceptance of individual choices.

You say all this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you say it based on government for the rich. The Founders didn't necessarily intend for the situation to become like this. Yes, the rich controlled politics way back when, but then the masses didn't have an education. They put in place things for the people to be able to change the Constitution to make it fit the times, this hasn't been done.

I'm not talking about government providing everything, I'm talking about THE PEOPLE being in control of their own country.

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

If you want to change the Constitution and how things are done, there is an amendment process that’s clearly outlined to change it. I happen to think social security is outdated from how it was originally funded and intended, I’m sure you don’t want a debate to see which way that plan ought to go. We have a clear Constitutional process to make changes, you just don’t change the rules simply because you don’t like how the system was set up by the orchestrators who wrote the United States Constitution.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It’s really not at all hard to do

“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”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

Indeed. How unfortunate for you that the constitution gives congress the authority to collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the country.

Section. 8.
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;

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the role to provide welfare, but it’s interesting how we have a “commerce clause” that provides the structure for promoting goods and services between the states . Promoting the general welfare, and providing a welfare system and Health Care, are two totally different things.

Again, Hamilton (the quote you overlooked) believed in a two government system so
“If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by EITHER (that means Federal or State Government by the way), they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,”

A government system that sees the collective needs of all within its countries boundary, as opposed to the need of a State / Federal hierarchical government, is known as a national system of government NOT the Constitutional system our Founders established.

Understand the difference.

You think there's a difference. The problem is that the Constitution can be interpreted, especially when it's so vague.

"general welfare" is as vague as it comes. The federal govt has the power to raise taxes for the general welfare, if they have the taxing power they can also assume they have the legislative power to make laws based on welfare too.

The clear list of how the federal government would handle the military, coin money, the handling of bankruptcies, and with regards to the post office which wasn’t vague. The commerce clause was there to articulate how services would be handled between the states. They also made clear what the duty of the federal government would be in compassion to what responsibilities was expected of the state.