A Religious View of Welfare

[PoliticalChic]

While Leftism is a religion of 'rights,' real religion is based on obligations.


The great difference between the two concepts can best be seen when the discussion gets around to the welfare system.


1. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that, in earlier times,human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the formeralso dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

a. The government's welfare plan is based on a lack of understanding of human nature: those accepting largesse without working for same hate themselves, and learn to hate the giver as well.
"If you pick up a stray dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between dogs and men." Mark Twain.




2. In earlier times, before materialism and secularism took their toll, social communication proceeded, largely, from church sermons. And sermons, frequently propounding the need for personal help and hospitality, were "powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose."
"The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England," p. 3,byHarry S. Stout

a. "...compassion and Mercy to the poor is Conformity to God."
Benjamin Colman, " The merchandise of a people holiness to the Lord : A sermon preached in part at the publick lecture in Boston, July 1. 1725"

b. So, in times where God was considered a personal intervenor ( e.g., "God's Providence"), the premise was that charity should not be limited to the clockwork view that it was simply money to be handed over...."God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver and gold....If a man gives all the substance of his house instead of love, ....it would be condemned."
Benjamin Colman, Op. Cit.




3. In the earlier times, as Gertrude Himmelfarb explains: "There was nothing invidious in being preached to. What was invidious was not being preached to, not having access to the kinds of moral, religious and communal experiences that were a normal part of life for those not so poor as to be deprived of them".
A stark reversal was the result of the new emphasis on materialism, actually producing folks who rail about 'religion being forced down their throat.'
Quite an exaggeration, I believe.

'Welfare' was was taken over by Franklin Roosevelt's government, moving it out of the realm of the private charities.
Lyndon Johnson was the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt.



4. " Governments have enacted enormous welfare programs to try to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and transport their citizens and even to put cell phones in their hands....the welfare state has grown to consume nearly a third of the government’s annual budget. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson launched a massive spending program to eradicate poverty in the world’s richest nation. But the program didn’t defeat poverty. Instead, it created welfare dependency, laziness and opportunity for fraud.

a. In 1960, nearly two thirds of these heads of households worked. But by 1991, only one third of them worked, and only 11 percent worked full-time, year-round.... 45 million Americans (14.5 percent) are still living below the poverty line."
The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


Of course, the current resident of the White House has made it even worse.

Then state for the record that you want to end all welfare. Flip flop on your previous positions.

Hmmm......where are all of your examples in support of the charge you've made?

None?


I suppose this is the reason why you are the "NYLiar," huh?

You are basing it on a fallacy of composition (potentially through an appeal to ignorance) and then a fallacy of false cause.

It is simple socialism 101:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Any commandments of Religion simply because our Founding Fathers ordained and established and spake it thus, in Article the Sixth.

As I said earlier...you could not be more wrong.
I see you tried.
But your post certainly is ignorant.

General Welfare of the nation was not the welfare given to individuals to sit home and vote Democrat.

The despot, Franklin Roosevelt was the cause of your erroneous post. He changed the relationship of the people and the government.


. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

 

[danielpalos]

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and break the yoke from the oppressed and the glory of God shall be your rear guard.

That's the religious view of welfare.

The religious could not handle the poor and starving in the large numbers after industrialization....

That's capitalism's fault. It is not a pro-Christian system.

Christianity is an agrarian based society philosophy......and has yet come up to the present....

Only 2000 years though, and the sincerity expressed by Christians of the recent past is all but gone today. It's being marginalized and made more and more quaint.

The Roman Catholics did all they could to kill the original church and it's gospels, and also any competition from any sects that sprang up and grew to powerful...

their work ethic seems to be bailing out the work ethic of a sect that sprang up and grew powerful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and break the yoke from the oppressed and the glory of God shall be your rear guard.

That's the religious view of welfare.

The religious could not handle the poor and starving in the large numbers after industrialization....

A perfect example of the indoctrination you've accepted.

1. Do you regularly find the need to step over the 'starving' lying in the streets?
So...that was bogus, wasn't it.

2. The use of the word 'poor' is bogus as well. It refers to those with no food, no home, no heat.
You've been tricked into using it for folks with a slightly smaller flat screen tv than you have.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. " The U.S. spends about $1 trillion a year on close to 200 federal and state welfare programs. Based on Census Bureau data, that amounts to $16,800 per person in poverty, or over $50,000 for a family of three. In other words, America spends enough in cash to BUY every poor person out of poverty!

.... taking cash from hard-working people and handing it to their neighbors would only create a cycle of dependence and laziness."
The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


Yet, there are actually voters so stupid that they claim that not enough is spent to alleviate poverty!!!

a. "... this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to$20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three."
Scribd




6. On the most basic level....the claim of poor children starving.... "It is nearly impossible in the contemporary United States for a mother to be left without a way to provide her children with a decent diet."
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion."

a. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
How Poor Are America s Poor Examining the Plague of Poverty in America

 

[danielpalos]

While Leftism is a religion of 'rights,' real religion is based on obligations.


The great difference between the two concepts can best be seen when the discussion gets around to the welfare system.


1. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that, in earlier times,human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the formeralso dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

a. The government's welfare plan is based on a lack of understanding of human nature: those accepting largesse without working for same hate themselves, and learn to hate the giver as well.
"If you pick up a stray dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between dogs and men." Mark Twain.




2. In earlier times, before materialism and secularism took their toll, social communication proceeded, largely, from church sermons. And sermons, frequently propounding the need for personal help and hospitality, were "powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose."
"The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England," p. 3,byHarry S. Stout

a. "...compassion and Mercy to the poor is Conformity to God."
Benjamin Colman, " The merchandise of a people holiness to the Lord : A sermon preached in part at the publick lecture in Boston, July 1. 1725"

b. So, in times where God was considered a personal intervenor ( e.g., "God's Providence"), the premise was that charity should not be limited to the clockwork view that it was simply money to be handed over...."God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver and gold....If a man gives all the substance of his house instead of love, ....it would be condemned."
Benjamin Colman, Op. Cit.




3. In the earlier times, as Gertrude Himmelfarb explains: "There was nothing invidious in being preached to. What was invidious was not being preached to, not having access to the kinds of moral, religious and communal experiences that were a normal part of life for those not so poor as to be deprived of them".
A stark reversal was the result of the new emphasis on materialism, actually producing folks who rail about 'religion being forced down their throat.'
Quite an exaggeration, I believe.

'Welfare' was was taken over by Franklin Roosevelt's government, moving it out of the realm of the private charities.
Lyndon Johnson was the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt.



4. " Governments have enacted enormous welfare programs to try to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and transport their citizens and even to put cell phones in their hands....the welfare state has grown to consume nearly a third of the government’s annual budget. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson launched a massive spending program to eradicate poverty in the world’s richest nation. But the program didn’t defeat poverty. Instead, it created welfare dependency, laziness and opportunity for fraud.

a. In 1960, nearly two thirds of these heads of households worked. But by 1991, only one third of them worked, and only 11 percent worked full-time, year-round.... 45 million Americans (14.5 percent) are still living below the poverty line."
The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


Of course, the current resident of the White House has made it even worse.

Then state for the record that you want to end all welfare. Flip flop on your previous positions.

Hmmm......where are all of your examples in support of the charge you've made?

None?


I suppose this is the reason why you are the "NYLiar," huh?

You are basing it on a fallacy of composition (potentially through an appeal to ignorance) and then a fallacy of false cause.

It is simple socialism 101:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Any commandments of Religion simply because our Founding Fathers ordained and established and spake it thus, in Article the Sixth.

As I said earlier...you could not be more wrong.
I see you tried.
But your post certainly is ignorant.

General Welfare of the nation was not the welfare given to individuals to sit home and vote Democrat.

The despot, Franklin Roosevelt was the cause of your erroneous post. He changed the relationship of the people and the government.


. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

dudette, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

​

How do you explain private laws in the US? Is not the private welfare and even a more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, included in any general welfare?

 

[PoliticalChic]

While Leftism is a religion of 'rights,' real religion is based on obligations.


The great difference between the two concepts can best be seen when the discussion gets around to the welfare system.


1. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that, in earlier times,human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the formeralso dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

a. The government's welfare plan is based on a lack of understanding of human nature: those accepting largesse without working for same hate themselves, and learn to hate the giver as well.
"If you pick up a stray dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between dogs and men." Mark Twain.




2. In earlier times, before materialism and secularism took their toll, social communication proceeded, largely, from church sermons. And sermons, frequently propounding the need for personal help and hospitality, were "powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose."
"The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England," p. 3,byHarry S. Stout

a. "...compassion and Mercy to the poor is Conformity to God."
Benjamin Colman, " The merchandise of a people holiness to the Lord : A sermon preached in part at the publick lecture in Boston, July 1. 1725"

b. So, in times where God was considered a personal intervenor ( e.g., "God's Providence"), the premise was that charity should not be limited to the clockwork view that it was simply money to be handed over...."God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver and gold....If a man gives all the substance of his house instead of love, ....it would be condemned."
Benjamin Colman, Op. Cit.




3. In the earlier times, as Gertrude Himmelfarb explains: "There was nothing invidious in being preached to. What was invidious was not being preached to, not having access to the kinds of moral, religious and communal experiences that were a normal part of life for those not so poor as to be deprived of them".
A stark reversal was the result of the new emphasis on materialism, actually producing folks who rail about 'religion being forced down their throat.'
Quite an exaggeration, I believe.

'Welfare' was was taken over by Franklin Roosevelt's government, moving it out of the realm of the private charities.
Lyndon Johnson was the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt.



4. " Governments have enacted enormous welfare programs to try to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and transport their citizens and even to put cell phones in their hands....the welfare state has grown to consume nearly a third of the government’s annual budget. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson launched a massive spending program to eradicate poverty in the world’s richest nation. But the program didn’t defeat poverty. Instead, it created welfare dependency, laziness and opportunity for fraud.

a. In 1960, nearly two thirds of these heads of households worked. But by 1991, only one third of them worked, and only 11 percent worked full-time, year-round.... 45 million Americans (14.5 percent) are still living below the poverty line."
The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


Of course, the current resident of the White House has made it even worse.

Then state for the record that you want to end all welfare. Flip flop on your previous positions.

Hmmm......where are all of your examples in support of the charge you've made?

None?


I suppose this is the reason why you are the "NYLiar," huh?

You are basing it on a fallacy of composition (potentially through an appeal to ignorance) and then a fallacy of false cause.

It is simple socialism 101:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Any commandments of Religion simply because our Founding Fathers ordained and established and spake it thus, in Article the Sixth.

As I said earlier...you could not be more wrong.
I see you tried.
But your post certainly is ignorant.

General Welfare of the nation was not the welfare given to individuals to sit home and vote Democrat.

The despot, Franklin Roosevelt was the cause of your erroneous post. He changed the relationship of the people and the government.


. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

dudette, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

How do you explain private laws in the US? Is not the private welfare and even a more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, included in any general welfare?

Am I getting credit for providing the education you missed out on???


The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

'If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.'
Brant, Irving “The Fourth President - A Life of James Madison,” p. 257.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While Leftism is a religion of 'rights,' real religion is based on obligations.


The great difference between the two concepts can best be seen when the discussion gets around to the welfare system.


1. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that, in earlier times,human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the formeralso dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

a. The government's welfare plan is based on a lack of understanding of human nature: those accepting largesse without working for same hate themselves, and learn to hate the giver as well.
"If you pick up a stray dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between dogs and men." Mark Twain.




2. In earlier times, before materialism and secularism took their toll, social communication proceeded, largely, from church sermons. And sermons, frequently propounding the need for personal help and hospitality, were "powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose."
"The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England," p. 3,byHarry S. Stout

a. "...compassion and Mercy to the poor is Conformity to God."
Benjamin Colman, " The merchandise of a people holiness to the Lord : A sermon preached in part at the publick lecture in Boston, July 1. 1725"

b. So, in times where God was considered a personal intervenor ( e.g., "God's Providence"), the premise was that charity should not be limited to the clockwork view that it was simply money to be handed over...."God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver and gold....If a man gives all the substance of his house instead of love, ....it would be condemned."
Benjamin Colman, Op. Cit.




3. In the earlier times, as Gertrude Himmelfarb explains: "There was nothing invidious in being preached to. What was invidious was not being preached to, not having access to the kinds of moral, religious and communal experiences that were a normal part of life for those not so poor as to be deprived of them".
A stark reversal was the result of the new emphasis on materialism, actually producing folks who rail about 'religion being forced down their throat.'
Quite an exaggeration, I believe.

'Welfare' was was taken over by Franklin Roosevelt's government, moving it out of the realm of the private charities.
Lyndon Johnson was the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt.



4. " Governments have enacted enormous welfare programs to try to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and transport their citizens and even to put cell phones in their hands....the welfare state has grown to consume nearly a third of the government’s annual budget. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson launched a massive spending program to eradicate poverty in the world’s richest nation. But the program didn’t defeat poverty. Instead, it created welfare dependency, laziness and opportunity for fraud.

a. In 1960, nearly two thirds of these heads of households worked. But by 1991, only one third of them worked, and only 11 percent worked full-time, year-round.... 45 million Americans (14.5 percent) are still living below the poverty line."
The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


Of course, the current resident of the White House has made it even worse.

Then state for the record that you want to end all welfare. Flip flop on your previous positions.

Hmmm......where are all of your examples in support of the charge you've made?

None?


I suppose this is the reason why you are the "NYLiar," huh?

What is your position on Medicaid?

Wasn't that fun yesterday, when I pointed out that searching for the deserter Bergdahl cost the lives of six American soldiers....and you screamed that I was lying.....and I provided both links showing the six names.....and pictures of the six???

Wasn't that fun?

Have no fear: your title as the most duplicitous poster is safe!

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. We can see that in terms of modern welfare policy.There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

The Bible memorializes the result of eons of interpersonal actions, and these include charity, today called welfare.




8. "[Biblical] welfare laws contrast starkly against those used by our national governments.... Today’s welfare recipients get checks and subsidies in their mailboxes. But [a religious] welfare program encourages the poor to work. The Apostle Paul wrote that “if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
This is... instruction to a poor person on how to attain what he needs." The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com



9. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.




The reference to 'prophane,' or profane is echoed in something Geraldo Rivera said this week:

"Geraldo Rivera: 'Hip-Hop Has Done More Damage To Black And Brown People Than Racism In The Last 10 Years'"
Geraldo Rivera Hip-Hop Has Done More Damage To Black And Brown People Than Racism In The Last 10 Years

 

[danielpalos]

Then state for the record that you want to end all welfare. Flip flop on your previous positions.

Hmmm......where are all of your examples in support of the charge you've made?

None?


I suppose this is the reason why you are the "NYLiar," huh?

You are basing it on a fallacy of composition (potentially through an appeal to ignorance) and then a fallacy of false cause.

It is simple socialism 101:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Any commandments of Religion simply because our Founding Fathers ordained and established and spake it thus, in Article the Sixth.

As I said earlier...you could not be more wrong.
I see you tried.
But your post certainly is ignorant.

General Welfare of the nation was not the welfare given to individuals to sit home and vote Democrat.

The despot, Franklin Roosevelt was the cause of your erroneous post. He changed the relationship of the people and the government.


. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

dudette, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

How do you explain private laws in the US? Is not the private welfare and even a more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, included in any general welfare?

Am I getting credit for providing the education you missed out on???


The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

'If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.'
Brant, Irving “The Fourth President - A Life of James Madison,” p. 257.

Your red herring is duly noted. I am advocating only this:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."--The Federalist Number 41

 

[Moonglow]

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and break the yoke from the oppressed and the glory of God shall be your rear guard.

That's the religious view of welfare.

The religious could not handle the poor and starving in the large numbers after industrialization....

A perfect example of the indoctrination you've accepted.

1. Do you regularly find the need to step over the 'starving' lying in the streets?
So...that was bogus, wasn't it.

2. The use of the word 'poor' is bogus as well. It refers to those with no food, no home, no heat.
You've been tricked into using it for folks with a slightly smaller flat screen tv than you have.

Bogus is your inability to see reality....from both sides, instead of propagating propaganda from one side..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and break the yoke from the oppressed and the glory of God shall be your rear guard.

That's the religious view of welfare.

The religious could not handle the poor and starving in the large numbers after industrialization....

A perfect example of the indoctrination you've accepted.

1. Do you regularly find the need to step over the 'starving' lying in the streets?
So...that was bogus, wasn't it.

2. The use of the word 'poor' is bogus as well. It refers to those with no food, no home, no heat.
You've been tricked into using it for folks with a slightly smaller flat screen tv than you have.

Bogus is your inability to see reality....from both sides, instead of propagating propaganda from one side..

PLeeeeeezzzze.....

The welfare system is a thinly disguised vote-buying system aimed as the richest poor people in the world.


Proof of your failure to think is your use of this phrase: "...the poor and starving..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm......where are all of your examples in support of the charge you've made?

None?


I suppose this is the reason why you are the "NYLiar," huh?

You are basing it on a fallacy of composition (potentially through an appeal to ignorance) and then a fallacy of false cause.

It is simple socialism 101:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Any commandments of Religion simply because our Founding Fathers ordained and established and spake it thus, in Article the Sixth.

As I said earlier...you could not be more wrong.
I see you tried.
But your post certainly is ignorant.

General Welfare of the nation was not the welfare given to individuals to sit home and vote Democrat.

The despot, Franklin Roosevelt was the cause of your erroneous post. He changed the relationship of the people and the government.


. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

dudette, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

How do you explain private laws in the US? Is not the private welfare and even a more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, included in any general welfare?

Am I getting credit for providing the education you missed out on???


The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

'If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.'
Brant, Irving “The Fourth President - A Life of James Madison,” p. 257.

Your red herring is duly noted. I am advocating only this:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."--The Federalist Number 41

We haven't had the guidance of the Constitution since the ascension of King Franklin the First.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a federal doctrine of separation of powers, for a very good reason.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We have a federal doctrine of separation of powers, for a very good reason.

You're not serious......are you???

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "...Deuteronomy 23:24-25. ... stipulates that a needy individual is legally permitted to eat his fill in any of his neighbor’s vineyards or fields. He can’t harvest anything to take home, but he can eat enough to fill his empty belly. This provided for Israel’s poor—withoutany government subsidies or welfare programs.


This principle constantly reminded those of means to keep the poor in mind. God told property-owning Israelites to leave the corners of the field alone; to leave the ears that fell to the ground while reaping; to leave the imperfect fruits or clusters.These were for the poor and the foreigners who couldn’t possess land in Israel. Thus, every time the Israelites reaped their fields, they had to remember their responsibility to the poor (Leviticus 19:9-10).


God doesn’t command that we set up soup kitchens, give handouts or issue unemployment checks. He commands the poor to get out and work. If you want a meal, you are welcome to it—but you have to go into the field and pick it yourself.

Modern welfare laws break this law. They take the responsibility away from the neighbor and place it on a vote-hungry government that uses taxation and debt to put—and keep—people on government paychecks, vouchers and subsidies. These policies encourage laziness, welfare dependency and fraud... " The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Leftwing government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

a.Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb"



b. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.





12. "If you subsidize law-breaking, you will end up with more law-breaking. ...welfare legislation falls into this trap by rewarding the poor for breaking ...other laws—on sexual morality, for example. Young men fornicate and procreate without taking responsibility for providing for, loving or even knowing their children. Young women are now financially motivated to bear illegitimate children because they know the state will send checks to take care of them. Unsurprisingly, single mothers are among the biggest recipients of welfare.

Anything that breaks down family increases welfare dependency. Fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, single motherhood—this law-breaking hurts people financially and creates needier people. " The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


This is the ineluctable result of Liberal/Progressive/Democrat governance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. "Debt is often what makes poverty absolutely crushing. .... simple solution to this problem:zero-interest loans.“If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury” (Exodus 22:25).... … [A] culture which has zero-interest loans encourages generosity to the poor and a giving spirit”
David James King, Creating a Nation Under God.


The law in Leviticus 25:35-38 says that if a brother or even a stranger or sojourner “becomes poor, and falls into poverty,” then he should be relieved, maintained and strengthened (New King James Version). The law gives two ways to do so: First is the no-interest loan; second is the provision that the poor can buy food “at cost.”
God’s law forbids making a profit from selling food to the poor. These laws do much to put a poor person on the road to quick recovery.



Widows without family support are given extra legal protection if they need to borrow money. God commanded His nation to give special attention to the widow and forbade people from taking advantage of her (e.g. Exodus 22:22-24; Deuteronomy 24:17; 27:19)." The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com


14. . The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
"Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p. 29.




By pricing the unskilled's labor beyond its worth, minimum wage laws effectively increase unemployment and debt in exactly that level of the population where it is most deleterious.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

 

[PoliticalChic]

15. "Deuteronomy 24 “When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.”

As Solomon wrote, “He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack” and that the “liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself” (Proverbs 28:27; 11:25).



....it iswrong to spend every last cent we earn on ourselves. God wants us to think about the poor. Christ said the poor would always be among us, and would need help. Keeping these laws helps our society in three ways:


1)It teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves.We must not overlook the person who is in want, or say,Too bad for them,or,I’ll leave their care to the federal government.We treat them the way we would want to be treated if we fell on hard times.


2)It keeps the burden of welfare off the state.Notice thatnoneof these welfare laws involve the government. They help the poor without requiring a single penny in taxes for a federal program.


3)It binds the nation closer together.In God’s system, welfare doesn’t funnel through a faceless bureaucracy. God’s way forms bonds between the people who give the charity and those who receive it. This benefits both parties.

Also, consider that the government had absolutely no part in any of those laws." The Welfare System That Works - theTrumpet.com




It is helping the poor to defeat poverty by their own efforts that reverses the situation.
And that is the reason that government welfare programs cannot be successful....they produce the character defects that result in poverty.

 

[Steven_R]

. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

You mean like the Morrell Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862? Or the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen of 1798? Or maybe the Louisiana Purchase? Or the Compromise of 1850?

Congress and the president engaged in a bunch of stuff that could only be shoehorned into the Art. 1, Sec. 8 powers if you squinted and folded and turned the law sideways, and that's if they even paid attention to the restrictions in the first place, and it was happening long before FDR packed the courts. Government always expands and the US government in no exception. It has been doing things it wasn't intended to do since day one. It is simple intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

. Up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause


Take notes, and never make that mistake again.

You mean like the Morrell Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862? Or the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen of 1798? Or maybe the Louisiana Purchase? Or the Compromise of 1850?

Congress and the president engaged in a bunch of stuff that could only be shoehorned into the Art. 1, Sec. 8 powers if you squinted and folded and turned the law sideways, and that's if they even paid attention to the restrictions in the first place, and it was happening long before FDR packed the courts. Government always expands and the US government in no exception. It has been doing things it wasn't intended to do since day one. It is simple intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.

As you have posted "It is simple intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise," which seems personally directed, I shall have to show that you remain far from the sharpest knife in the draw.

Pay attention:

Earlier Presidents kept an eye on constitutional restrictions.

Like this President:
1. “[Of President Grover Cleveland's 584 vetoes, that of the "Texas Seed Bill" (February 16, 1887) may be the most famous. Members of Congress wanted to help suffering farmers in the American West, but Cleveland rejected their bill, citing the limited mission of the general government and arguing that private charity and already-existing government programs should furnish the necessary aid.]

Stephen Grover Cleveland (1837–1908)

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.” Mises Daily Mises Institute


2. Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book,New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises.
Hurricane Sandy presidential candidates and Grover Cleveland


3. The Rivers and Harbors Bill was a bill passed by Congress in 1846 to provide $500,000 to improve rivers and harbors. When the Senate passed the Rivers and Harbors Bill 34 to 16 on July 24, 1846, opponents lobbied for a presidential veto.[1]

It was vetoed by President James K. Polk on August 3. The bill would have provided for federally funded internal improvements on small harbors, many of them on the Great Lakes.Polk believed that this was unconstitutionalbecause the bill unfairly favored particular areas, including ports which had no foreign trade. Polk believed that these problems were local and not national.

Polk feared that passing the Rivers and Harbors Bill would encourage legislators to compete for favors for their home districts – a type of corruption that would spell doom to the virtue of the republic.[2] In this regardhe followed his hero Andrew Jackson, who had vetoed the Maysville Road Bill in 1830 on similar grounds.[3]
Rivers and Harbors Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

5. "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.




"....the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."