Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[The T]

And on that note? Forcing them to do anything, and belive anything would be an affront to their Liberty at the hands of government would it not?

you can be forced to do some things, liike go to school unless your parents emancipate you. I don't think the government should have this power though.

They can't make you believe anything though and I don't think they do now, unless I am missing something

Nope. You have it correct. Good Form.

 

[The T]

Nope, you're wrong.

The first act of the House of Representatives of the First U. S. Congress was to elect a Speaker. The first act of the Senate was to choose a President.

You lie.

You lie.

I am not sure about the first two, but the last one is true.

You lie.

Conservatives in the 1850's were bitching about public schools not using the Bible.

And why does this bother you exactly?

 

[kwc57]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional... if we elected to do so

As is having them also constitutional according to our current interpretation of our laws.

The world belongs to the LIVING, not to the dead.

The flounder fathers wrote a document that did NOT ties our hands with specific laws.

They understood, like those of you who imagine that there is a right "literal" interpretation of the Constitution do not, that one cannot bind the FUTURE generations to the vision of the current generation.

Most of us would not be able to VOTE, if we'd stuck to the constitution that our floundering fathers originally wrote.

Now who here wants to come out in favor of only allowing a very small percentage of the population to vote?

Who here wants to come out in favor of once again allowing slavery?

THAT would be a literal interpretation of the constitution that our floundering fathers passed.

Now I know some of you would be in favor of those changes to our society

I also know most of you who would like thise things, don't have the balls to openly admit it.

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

 

[The T]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional... if we elected to do so

As is having them also constitutional according to our current interpretation of our laws.

The world belongs to the LIVING, not to the dead.

The flounder fathers wrote a document that did NOT ties our hands with specific laws.

They understood, like those of you who imagine that there is a right "literal" interpretation of the Constitution do not, that one cannot bind the FUTURE generations to the vision of the current generation.

Most of us would not be able to VOTE, if we'd stuck to the constitution that our floundering fathers originally wrote.

Now who here wants to come out in favor of only allowing a very small percentage of the population to vote?

Who here wants to come out in favor of once again allowing slavery?

THAT would be a literal interpretation of the constitution that our floundering fathers passed.

Now I know some of you would be in favor of those changes to our society

I also know most of you who would like thise things, don't have the balls to openly admit it.

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

*

 

[blu]

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

not all rich people worked their assess off. many are trust fund babies who haven't done a single thing in their life except spend their families money. on the other hand you ahve kids born into completely poor families with parents that have an iq of 5 between them. these aer the kids that need to be rescued and given a chance at a decent life

 

[kwc57]

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

not all rich people worked their assess off. many are trust fund babies who haven't done a single thing in their life except spend their families money. on the other hand you ahve kids born into completely poor families with parents that have an iq of 5 between them. these aer the kids that need to be rescued and given a chance at a decent life

Should the wealth I accumulate end with me? When I die, should the government get it? If I can pass my pocket watch to my son, why can't I pass my wealth? I made my money for me AND my family. True, there are people who might not have the intelligence others posess. No one said life is fair. But in America, we do have a level playing field for educating yourself, taking risk and making money. The government can see to that thru the constitution. What it shouldn't do is take from one and give to another. I didn't earn my living to support other people. They are not entitled to my income. That is not what promote the general welfare means.

 

[saveliberty]

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

not all rich people worked their assess off. many are trust fund babies who haven't done a single thing in their life except spend their families money. on the other hand you ahve kids born into completely poor families with parents that have an iq of 5 between them. these aer the kids that need to be rescued and given a chance at a decent life

The world needs to be fair according to blu's standards? Paris Hilton might be an examle of what your talking about. Yet stop and think, there are many jobs created in following her around, product sold and discussions on justice and drug use.

You can never justify stealing others property, even under the guise of helping the poor.

 

[blu]

Should the wealth I accumulate end with me? When I die, should the government get it? If I can pass my pocket watch to my son, why can't I pass my wealth? I made my money for me AND my family. True, there are people who might not have the intelligence others posess. No one said life is fair. But in America, we do have a level playing field for educating yourself, taking risk and making money. The government can see to that thru the constitution. What it shouldn't do is take from one and give to another. I didn't earn my living to support other people. They are not entitled to my income. That is not what promote the general welfare means.

not really, a valedictorian in a new orleans inner city school a few years ago graduated with a 14 on her ACT. if you aren't familiar with the act, you need at least a 20 or 22 out of 36 to get into community colleges. No matter how hard people try in public schools in places like this they still aren't going to get a decent education and are still set to a life working minimum wage. all while the trust fund kids get sent to 30k a year schools and waste the opportunity.

I don't believe in the death tax at all though and find it horrendous. I just wish there was some way to make trust fund kids be responsible on otheir own and help out the unfortunate kids who were born into extreme poor with drugged out parents who don't give a ****

 

[blu]

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

not all rich people worked their assess off. many are trust fund babies who haven't done a single thing in their life except spend their families money. on the other hand you ahve kids born into completely poor families with parents that have an iq of 5 between them. these aer the kids that need to be rescued and given a chance at a decent life

The world needs to be fair according to blu's standards? Paris Hilton might be an examle of what your talking about. Yet stop and think, there are many jobs created in following her around, product sold and discussions on justice and drug use.

You can never justify stealing others property, even under the guise of helping the poor.

nope, never said the world had to be fair

 

[johnrocks]

I think the Anti Federalists had it right in a lot of ways....

"This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every corner of the city, and country--it will wait upon the ladies at their toilet, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into parlor, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will accompany him to his bedchamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labor, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them will be GIVE! GIVE!

Brutus (Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention)

 

[Big Fitz]

And yet, the first amendment prohibits government from restricting religious speech, but it is in every public school and event.

which did you say was unconstitutional again? Oh that's right. only the forcing of someone to pray. You're right there, but you always seem to ignore the second half of that. There is no freedom FROM religion in the constitution, and atheism is not the default setting.

 

[Charles_Main]

With the way how the conservative monkeys are interpreting the Constitution one would get the impression that the Constitution was a document written by conservatives for conservatives only.

And the way the lefties trample over it, one would think we didn't have a Constitution.

Conservatives have a problem with being consistent, they interpret the Constitution literally when it suits them and then pretend to know what its writers meant on other occasions. The second Amendment is taken literal by the Republican conservatives while general welfare is taken to mean something, make your minds up, either you're going to be literal or not.

Liberals do exactly the same thing.

 

[Charles_Main]

The rich? You mean the industrious folks who took risks and worked their asses off to accumulate wealh for themselves and their families? You do realize that the gubmints promotion of the general welfare gives every American citizen the ability to do the same thing if they have the gumption to do so don't you? It doesn't mean taking other people's hard earned wealth and giving it to other people.

not all rich people worked their assess off. many are trust fund babies who haven't done a single thing in their life except spend their families money. on the other hand you ahve kids born into completely poor families with parents that have an iq of 5 between them. these aer the kids that need to be rescued and given a chance at a decent life

The vast majority of Millionaires in America Earned it. Jack ass.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Oh and you failed to address why you think tax cuts equals charity.

Whoa whoa whoa! Back that truck up... Tax cuts are CHARITY now???? How the **** does THAT work? This isn't like the government is giving me an allowance here. I earn my own damn money and expect to keep it. It's not charitable that the mugger known as gubmint is going to walk up to me and say 'since I'm feeling charitable, I'm only going to rob you of 25% instead of 25%. Ain't we nice? Now go earn my some more money, *****. Uncle Sugar's got things to do.'

The government is NOT my pimp.

Give liberals enough time and they will tell you EXACTLY what they think.

They see govermment as an extention of their own desires for power. That's why they are always cozying up to despots like Castro. They represent what they really wish they could do to US.

Subsequently, they think all money belongs to the government. In short, all money vicariously BELONGS TO THEM!

They resent the idea of people keeping the money they earn. They call it "greed" etc. etc. etc.

But the real greed COMES FROM LIBERALS. The Bible tells us not to covet. Liberals covet EVERYTHING that belongs to you. Your money, your land, your rights, your children, EVERYTHING.

They think that should belong to them.

So, when they call tax cuts "charity," they mean that. It's "charity" to let you plebes keep the money THAT REALLY BELONGS TO THEM!

You were just given an insight into what a liberal really thinks.

 

[saveliberty]

Apparently none of them is going to challenge your view either. Amazing they have no shame at all.

 

[blu]

tax cuts are charity for people who get back more than they pay in

 

[The T]

Should the wealth I accumulate end with me? When I die, should the government get it? If I can pass my pocket watch to my son, why can't I pass my wealth? I made my money for me AND my family. True, there are people who might not have the intelligence others posess. No one said life is fair. But in America, we do have a level playing field for educating yourself, taking risk and making money. The government can see to that thru the constitution. What it shouldn't do is take from one and give to another. I didn't earn my living to support other people. They are not entitled to my income. That is not what promote the general welfare means.

not really, a valedictorian in a new orleans inner city school a few years ago graduated with a 14 on her ACT. if you aren't familiar with the act, you need at least a 20 or 22 out of 36 to get into community colleges. No matter how hard people try in public schools in places like this they still aren't going to get a decent education and are still set to a life working minimum wage. all while the trust fund kids get sent to 30k a year schools and waste the opportunity.

I don't believe in the death tax at all though and find it horrendous. I just wish there was some way to make trust fund kids be responsible on otheir own and help out the unfortunate kids who were born into extreme poor with drugged out parents who don't give a ****

Then it is incumbent upon society to hold the parents that don't 'give a ****' responsible.

And it is also incumbent upon that same society to show them a better way and Government get out of their way. Government however, has put in so many roadblocks upon society to make it nearly impossible.


The result usually is beneficial to Government and their power over society to that end. Hence? Control.

 

[The T]

tax cuts are charity for people who get back more than they pay in

There's an answer to that. Flat tax...FairTax. Abolition of the IRS and the punitive Tax Code used for control.

 

[johnrocks]

Just cut out the income tax and don't replace it with anything

Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary
to Fund the U.S. Government

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

 

[The T]

Just cut out the income tax and don't replace it with anything

Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary
to Fund the U.S. Government

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

Good read.

Here's another.

The Income Tax: Root of all Evil