Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[rightwinger]

No, general welfare refers to the common good enjoyed by virtually everyone, but NOT social welfare.

Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.

Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits

 

[The T]

Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.

Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits

And what good is it when Government has so many roadblocks on business that they have created the conditions we see today?

And what good is it for society to have a bunch of moochers created BY the government as a result of their policies?

 

[boedicca]

Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.

Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits

No, the country as a whole does not benefit from a bridge in Wisconsin. A small group benefits at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not the governments job to dole out benefits. What you are neglecting is that without all of this government interference, the people in Wisconsin could probably build a better bridge for far cheaper without the Feds "help".

 

[rightwinger]

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.

Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits

And what good is it when Government has so many roadblocks on business that they have created the conditions we see today?

And what good is it for society to have a bunch of moochers created BY the government as a result of their policies?

The moochers are on both ends. We pass laws that encourages business to stay in business while they receive subsidized loans and benefits.

Our welfare also pays for people who are disabled and unable to work.

Either way. Both programs are examples of programs passed unde general welfare

 

[rightwinger]

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.

Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits

No, the country as a whole does not benefit from a bridge in Wisconsin. A small group benefits at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not the governments job to dole out benefits. What you are neglecting is that without all of this government interference, the people in Wisconsin could probably build a better bridge for far cheaper without the Feds "help".

If they could...they would

The country as a whole benefits from a robust transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure enables goods and services to move about quickly and cheaply.

 

[saveliberty]

Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits

No, the country as a whole does not benefit from a bridge in Wisconsin. A small group benefits at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not the governments job to dole out benefits. What you are neglecting is that without all of this government interference, the people in Wisconsin could probably build a better bridge for far cheaper without the Feds "help".

If they could...they would

The country as a whole benefits from a robust transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure enables goods and services to move about quickly and cheaply.

Then why doesn't the federal government fund the local street in front of my house? It has a back entrance to a middle school and front entrance to a high school along its length. You see, at some point your argument falls apart.

 

[rightwinger]

No, the country as a whole does not benefit from a bridge in Wisconsin. A small group benefits at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not the governments job to dole out benefits. What you are neglecting is that without all of this government interference, the people in Wisconsin could probably build a better bridge for far cheaper without the Feds "help".

If they could...they would

The country as a whole benefits from a robust transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure enables goods and services to move about quickly and cheaply.

Then why doesn't the federal government fund the local street in front of my house? It has a back entrance to a middle school and front entrance to a high school along its length. You see, at some point your argument falls apart.

No it doesn't ...because the federal government looks at the big picture

The interstate highway system was envisioned by Eisenhower who understood that being able to move across the country unrestricted was an economic and military necessity. In post WWII America we had no way of rapidly moving troops and supplies around in the case of a nuclear attack

Much of the funding and justification for the multi-billion dollar expenditure was for national security

 

[saveliberty]

If they could...they would

The country as a whole benefits from a robust transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure enables goods and services to move about quickly and cheaply.

Then why doesn't the federal government fund the local street in front of my house? It has a back entrance to a middle school and front entrance to a high school along its length. You see, at some point your argument falls apart.

No it doesn't ...because the federal government looks at the big picture

The interstate highway system was envisioned by Eisenhower who understood that being able to move across the country unrestricted was an economic and military necessity. In post WWII America we had no way of rapidly moving troops and supplies around in the case of a nuclear attack

Much of the funding and justification for the multi-billion dollar expenditure was for national security

So people in large metropolitan areas are more important than me? How is that equity? I noticed you abandoned the commerce argument in favor of a national defense one. National defense is one thing that the feds are in charge of. Probably why it does fall under general welfare. Yet it hasn't stopped the feds from building bridges and roads to obscure places without military importance.

 

[rightwinger]

Then why doesn't the federal government fund the local street in front of my house? It has a back entrance to a middle school and front entrance to a high school along its length. You see, at some point your argument falls apart.

No it doesn't ...because the federal government looks at the big picture

The interstate highway system was envisioned by Eisenhower who understood that being able to move across the country unrestricted was an economic and military necessity. In post WWII America we had no way of rapidly moving troops and supplies around in the case of a nuclear attack

Much of the funding and justification for the multi-billion dollar expenditure was for national security

So people in large metropolitan areas are more important than me? How is that equity? I noticed you abandoned the commerce argument in favor of a national defense one. National defense is one thing that the feds are in charge of. Probably why it does fall under general welfare. Yet it hasn't stopped the feds from building bridges and roads to obscure places without military importance.

No...just commenting on a little known factoid about our interstate highway system.

And in answer to your question.....yes highways in high density areas are more important than roads in the back woods. I've already pointed out how General Welfare does not mean that each person benefits equally.

 

[saveliberty]

No it doesn't ...because the federal government looks at the big picture

The interstate highway system was envisioned by Eisenhower who understood that being able to move across the country unrestricted was an economic and military necessity. In post WWII America we had no way of rapidly moving troops and supplies around in the case of a nuclear attack

Much of the funding and justification for the multi-billion dollar expenditure was for national security

So people in large metropolitan areas are more important than me? How is that equity? I noticed you abandoned the commerce argument in favor of a national defense one. National defense is one thing that the feds are in charge of. Probably why it does fall under general welfare. Yet it hasn't stopped the feds from building bridges and roads to obscure places without military importance.

No...just commenting on a little known factoid about our interstate highway system.

And in answer to your question.....yes highways in high density areas are more important than roads in the back woods. I've already pointed out how General Welfare does not mean that each person benefits equally.

In order to meet some possible sense of equity, I would think any welfare must potentially provide for any citizen to be termed general. He have and continue to manufacture military parts in our community. I think your argument falls short.

 

[rightwinger]

So people in large metropolitan areas are more important than me? How is that equity? I noticed you abandoned the commerce argument in favor of a national defense one. National defense is one thing that the feds are in charge of. Probably why it does fall under general welfare. Yet it hasn't stopped the feds from building bridges and roads to obscure places without military importance.

No...just commenting on a little known factoid about our interstate highway system.

And in answer to your question.....yes highways in high density areas are more important than roads in the back woods. I've already pointed out how General Welfare does not mean that each person benefits equally.

In order to meet some possible sense of equity, I would think any welfare must potentially provide for any citizen to be termed general. He have and continue to manufacture military parts in our community. I think your argument falls short.

Where would you get that impression? In what world is there ever equity? The Constitution does not discuss equity of legislation.

Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your opinion?

 

[saveliberty]

No...just commenting on a little known factoid about our interstate highway system.

And in answer to your question.....yes highways in high density areas are more important than roads in the back woods. I've already pointed out how General Welfare does not mean that each person benefits equally.

In order to meet some possible sense of equity, I would think any welfare must potentially provide for any citizen to be termed general. He have and continue to manufacture military parts in our community. I think your argument falls short.

Where would you get that impression? In what world is there ever equity? The Constitution does not discuss equity of legislation.

Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your opinion?

So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation? By your own admission, it has no legal basis.

 

[rightwinger]

In order to meet some possible sense of equity, I would think any welfare must potentially provide for any citizen to be termed general. He have and continue to manufacture military parts in our community. I think your argument falls short.

Where would you get that impression? In what world is there ever equity? The Constitution does not discuss equity of legislation.

Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your opinion?

So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation? By your own admission, it has no legal basis.

Do you really have that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity? Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life.
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy

 

[ConHog]

Where would you get that impression? In what world is there ever equity? The Constitution does not discuss equity of legislation.

Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your opinion?

So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation? By your own admission, it has no legal basis.

Do you really hyave that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity? Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life.
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy

In regards to the national highway system. It was created for national defense. at least that was the main reason. and so it is totally unrelated to THIS conversation because clearly the feds have jurisdiction over national defense.

 

[saveliberty]

Where would you get that impression? In what world is there ever equity? The Constitution does not discuss equity of legislation.

Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your opinion?

So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation? By your own admission, it has no legal basis.

Do you really hyave that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity? Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life.
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy

Life lesson here Right:

In the defining moments of your life, things ARE simple.

Birth of a child.
Losing a job.
Burying someone close.
Firing a weapon that takes a life.
Watching your daughter get married.

For some reason people want to complicate the rest of it for you. Don't let them.

 

[rightwinger]

So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation? By your own admission, it has no legal basis.

Do you really hyave that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity? Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life.
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy

Life lesson here Right:

In the defining moments of your life, things ARE simple.

Birth of a child.
Losing a job.
Burying someone close.
Firing a weapon that takes a life.
Watching your daughter get married.

For some reason people want to complicate the rest of it for you. Don't let them.

Nice try my friend

Your views in life ignore those in need, those who have been unjustly affected by factors out of their control, those who are afterthoughts in the attempt to accumulate wealth

 

[rightwinger]

So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation? By your own admission, it has no legal basis.

Do you really hyave that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity? Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life.
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy

In regards to the national highway system. It was created for national defense. at least that was the main reason. and so it is totally unrelated to THIS conversation because clearly the feds have jurisdiction over national defense.

People forget the mindset of the 1950s. A nuclear attack was imminent. If there was an attack, there was no way to quickly move troops and supplies to mwhere they were needed. The old two lane highway system would have taken weeks to move to the affected areas. A National highway system was critical to the national defense.

Now it is looked at as a nice way to transport goods accross the country

 

[saveliberty]

Do you really hyave that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity? Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life.
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy

Life lesson here Right:

In the defining moments of your life, things ARE simple.

Birth of a child.
Losing a job.
Burying someone close.
Firing a weapon that takes a life.
Watching your daughter get married.

For some reason people want to complicate the rest of it for you. Don't let them.

Nice try my friend

Your views in life ignore those in need, those who have been unjustly affected by factors out of their control, those who are afterthoughts in the attempt to accumulate wealth

If your their friend, help them. Don't wait for some government agency to humiliate them and place them in a system to be process like beef. I got a friend who is going through a tough financial time. She knows we have spare bedrooms that are hers for the asking. Your trying to complicate again.

 

[rightwinger]

Life lesson here Right:

In the defining moments of your life, things ARE simple.

Birth of a child.
Losing a job.
Burying someone close.
Firing a weapon that takes a life.
Watching your daughter get married.

For some reason people want to complicate the rest of it for you. Don't let them.

Nice try my friend

Your views in life ignore those in need, those who have been unjustly affected by factors out of their control, those who are afterthoughts in the attempt to accumulate wealth

If your their friend, help them. Don't wait for some government agency to humiliate them and place them in a system to be process like beef. I got a friend who is going through a tough financial time. She knows we have spare bedrooms that are hers for the asking. Your trying to complicate again.

Personal charity is wonderful. It provides close friends with a safety net when they are in dire need.

But what happens to people who do not have the network of friends to help them? If your good friend has a child with leukemia are you going to pick up the bills? We need a social welfare program to help those who otherwise would be left to suffer

 

[saveliberty]

Nice try my friend

Your views in life ignore those in need, those who have been unjustly affected by factors out of their control, those who are afterthoughts in the attempt to accumulate wealth

If your their friend, help them. Don't wait for some government agency to humiliate them and place them in a system to be process like beef. I got a friend who is going through a tough financial time. She knows we have spare bedrooms that are hers for the asking. Your trying to complicate again.

Personal charity is wonderful. It provides close friends with a safety net when they are in dire need.

But what happens to people who do not have the network of friends to help them? If your good friend has a child with leukemia are you going to pick up the bills? We need a social welfare program to help those who otherwise would be left to suffer

Oh yes, I see the advantages of your system. Keep people socially isolated and controlled by being their source of life giving needs and information.