Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Hence the reason the writers of it gave us the amendment process. If the Constitution simply means what ever we decide it to mean today, then it has no meaning at all.

 

[editec]

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.

What my interpretation of the general welfare is is not important. Flaylo.

The question before us is:

Would it be unconsitutional to end these programs?​

The answer to that question is NO.

Just as the answer to the question:

Are these programs constitutional?
​

Resoundingly YES!

AS I already tried to exlain, the constutution gives each generation the RIGHT to interpret that document as they see fit.

That's why the SCOTUS exists, after all, as an integral part of the structure of our government.

To interpret current laws on the books I(or proposed) to determine if they fit in with the SPIRIT of the Constitution.

The consitution is part directions for the structure of the government, and part suggestions for what kind of society we ought to be striving to create though that government.

It is a very elastic document, which is exactly why it's survived so long.















​

 

[editec]

Everyone would benefit by reading the Federalist Papers. On this topic, #45 seems appropriate.

The Federal government has become what even strong federalists feared, superior to the states. The states have become lackeys.

It's time the people insist on more local control, much easier to get rid of the loons.

Actually I agree with this complaint.

Not that I think that local control is necessarily superior, but clearly the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has ursuped power from the States.

This is, I think, a pretty good indication that the Constitution isn't the flawless document most of you seem to imagine it to be.

I think this usurption of State power was entirely constitutional, even though I think it has unfortunate consequences.

I think what that really tells us is that the framers of the US Constitution couldn't create a system of government that they'd HOPED they were creating.

It was a good bid, though.

Credit where credit is due, starting from where they were it was a remarkable attempt to create a central government that balanced power with number of independent governments.

I think what they were trying to do is, in any long run, basically impossible.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Asswipe. Social security is not social welfare. You must pay into it to get it. Welfare is when you get something for nothing which is probably what you are used to doing and hence your outrage that it may stop for you. Sucks to be you donut?

Half true with social security and correct on welfare.

 

[Gadawg73]

If it would be unconstitutional to end these social programs, because of the Constitutional call to "promote the general welfare," then explain why these programs didn't exist until more than 100 years AFTER the inception of the Constitution??????

That's like saying prayer is unconstitutional in schools, despite the fact prayer existed in schools, for more than 100 years until 1960.

Only liberals would think that something that never existed in Constitutional thought or decision, SUDDENLY EXISTS because of liberal edict and cannot be overturned by another's edicts.

Liberals don't think they are legislators, they think they are gods.

Prayer in schools has not been stopped. My daughter had a test yesterday and prayed all day long at school.
Where do you get your facts?

 

[DiamondDave]

The constitution is not flawless.. but that is why we have an amendment process... the term "general welfare of the united states" was never meant to be a catch all to have unlimited government power to spend on everything citizens want for themselves at the expense of taxpayers

 

[Barb]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Asswipe. Social security is not social welfare. You must pay into it to get it. Welfare is when you get something for nothing which is probably what you are used to doing and hence your outrage that it may stop for you. Sucks to be you donut?

SS is an entitlement program, but it is also included under the umbrella term of the "welfare state," as is education. Social insurance OASDHI programs designed to prevent the descent into poverty by softening the economic shocks created by instances that would decimate family or individual budgets include Social Security, Disability, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, and child support enforcement. These “event based” programs gain more public sympathy because of the groups targeted for relief, but they are also “vastly more effective in reducing poverty.” Since all but child support enforcement are paid through payroll contributions, and because the benefit levels of SSI and Unemployment Insurance are computed by earning averages, most are considered entitlements. Part of the popular support of these programs may have to do with the fact that the top economic quintile benefits to a much higher degree than the lowest, and they are the ones with the most political clout, but many millions of Americans would be poor without these programs.
Sucks to be you, donut?

 

[Flaylo]

In the preamble... PROMOTE not provide

Welfare did not have the same meaning as libs think of it today

And in Article 1 section 8, libs also forget to include the ENTIRE sentence... 'General welfare of the UNITED STATES'... AKA the union.... the union of states... not every last individual entity or citizen within the states.... it was never meant to have the government take over the personal responsibility of citizens.... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Now... that being said... I fully support those who give of themselves VOLUNTARILY and of their own free will and give to charities that call to them... but we are in no way to be forced to take over the personal responsibilities of others or of private companies, farmers, etc

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

News to me too.

All these social programs are nothing more than socialistic charity. Taking money from the group that earns it and giving it to those that kinda sorta forgot to get a job. Kinda sorta forgot to take birth control and kinda sorta have no sense of responsibility whatsoever.

There is no charity in the Constitution. No using of the public largess for charitable reasons.

Funny how that GW clause wan't used as charity until FDR started rewriting things to suite his views.

Kinda funny how no one up until then even considered using the public largesse as charity.

Charity: Not in the Constitution

No charity no problem, tell the Republicans to quit lobbying for charity taxcuts for the richest of rich and big businesses and anyone thats paying their corrupted asses off, thats only fair right? The need for social programs for the poor and needy wouldn't exist if the conditions that caused them were eliminated.

Tax cuts equal charity? How?

What conditions caused the need for social programs?

ahem.....

 

[Flaylo]

Actually I agree with this complaint.

Not that I think that local control is necessarily superior, but clearly the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has ursuped power from the States.

What kind of ******* control do you think states should have? History is always the best teacher and the states did a shitty job which is why federal intervention was necessary, look at that bullshit state law in Arizona on illegal immigrants that's basically a document for legal racial profiling of Hispanics.

 

[DiamondDave]

In the preamble... PROMOTE not provide

Welfare did not have the same meaning as libs think of it today

And in Article 1 section 8, libs also forget to include the ENTIRE sentence... 'General welfare of the UNITED STATES'... AKA the union.... the union of states... not every last individual entity or citizen within the states.... it was never meant to have the government take over the personal responsibility of citizens.... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Now... that being said... I fully support those who give of themselves VOLUNTARILY and of their own free will and give to charities that call to them... but we are in no way to be forced to take over the personal responsibilities of others or of private companies, farmers, etc

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

If big companies break the law that is one thing... but just because they are successful and don't share the wealth with you because you want it, does not mean you are entitled to it or entitled to have the government forcibly redistribute it for you

A company is not personally responsible for the well being of it's employees.... salaries and compensation are freely negotiated.. and if individuals feel they are treated unfairly, they have the FREEDOM to quit and work elsewhere

And "we republicans" don't inherently want just tax cuts... try spending cuts.. try having the ~50% that pay no income taxes start paying an equal % on every dollar earned as every other citizen.. no exceptions.... try supporting blind and equal treatment by government instead of selective equal treatment... ones like you who support selective equal treatment want equal treatment when it benefits you, and support unequal treatment of others when it benefits you

I am not, nor is anyone else, responsible for what you earn, what you negotiate, or how well you do.. that is on you, ************

 

[Flaylo]

News to me too.

All these social programs are nothing more than socialistic charity. Taking money from the group that earns it and giving it to those that kinda sorta forgot to get a job. Kinda sorta forgot to take birth control and kinda sorta have no sense of responsibility whatsoever.

There is no charity in the Constitution. No using of the public largess for charitable reasons.

Funny how that GW clause wan't used as charity until FDR started rewriting things to suite his views.

Kinda funny how no one up until then even considered using the public largesse as charity.

Charity: Not in the Constitution

No charity no problem, tell the Republicans to quit lobbying for charity taxcuts for the richest of rich and big businesses and anyone thats paying their corrupted asses off, thats only fair right? The need for social programs for the poor and needy wouldn't exist if the conditions that caused them were eliminated.

Tax cuts equal charity? How?

What conditions caused the need for social programs?

Get a ******* history lesson and learn. The Great Depression which was caused by big businesses ******* up needed the federal government to step in with social programs to remedy the situation. Jim Crow in the southern United States led to terrible conditions for black people that needed federal social programs to remedy the problem. I can go on and ******* on, you can't sit here and ******* tell me that every poor person and every unemployed have ended up as such because of poor personal responsibility or that they willingly chose that path. Some but not the majority.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No charity no problem, tell the Republicans to quit lobbying for charity taxcuts for the richest of rich and big businesses and anyone thats paying their corrupted asses off, thats only fair right? The need for social programs for the poor and needy wouldn't exist if the conditions that caused them were eliminated.

Tax cuts equal charity? How?

What conditions caused the need for social programs?

Get a ******* history lesson and learn. The Great Depression which was caused by big businesses ******* up needed the federal government to step in with social programs to remedy the situation. Jim Crow in the southern United States led to terrible conditions for black people that needed federal social programs to remedy the problem. I can go on and ******* on, you can't sit here and ******* tell me that every poor person and every unemployed have ended up as such because of poor personal responsibility or that they willingly chose that path. Some but not the majority.

Could you be more specific? I mean, I do know history and your blanket statement that big business caused the great depression is rather lame. What exactly did big business do that caused the stock market to crash in 1929? What caused over 9000 banks to fail throughout the 1930's? Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff play a role? And wouldn't you say the drought conditions in the 30's played a role as well?

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

 

[Flaylo]

In the preamble... PROMOTE not provide

Welfare did not have the same meaning as libs think of it today

And in Article 1 section 8, libs also forget to include the ENTIRE sentence... 'General welfare of the UNITED STATES'... AKA the union.... the union of states... not every last individual entity or citizen within the states.... it was never meant to have the government take over the personal responsibility of citizens.... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Now... that being said... I fully support those who give of themselves VOLUNTARILY and of their own free will and give to charities that call to them... but we are in no way to be forced to take over the personal responsibilities of others or of private companies, farmers, etc

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

If big companies break the law that is one thing... but just because they are successful and don't share the wealth with you because you want it, does not mean you are entitled to it or entitled to have the government forcibly redistribute it for you

A company is not personally responsible for the well being of it's employees.... salaries and compensation are freely negotiated.. and if individuals feel they are treated unfairly, they have the FREEDOM to quit and work elsewhere

And "we republicans" don't inherently want just tax cuts... try spending cuts.. try having the ~50% that pay no income taxes start paying an equal % on every dollar earned as every other citizen.. no exceptions.... try supporting blind and equal treatment by government instead of selective equal treatment... ones like you who support selective equal treatment want equal treatment when it benefits you, and support unequal treatment of others when it benefits you

I am not, nor is anyone else, responsible for what you earn, what you negotiate, or how well you do.. that is on you, ************

I guess what I said went completely over your ******* head. A company that wants tax cuts bolster employment when they perform well should equally have to take personal responsiblity in picking up the tab when their worker get layed off when the heads of those companies make poor decisions that result in workers getting fired, they should not be able to pocket the money from tax cuts and leave the government to clean up their mess. You want to preach that personal responsibility shit then be a doer and not just a talker.

Giving the big companies tax cuts while equally holding them responsible if their actions **** up the economy is fair and equal treatment, not unequal treatment, why the **** should they get tax cuts and not pay the price when they **** up the economy? After all,its not the fault of the laid off workers or the fault of the federal government when big companies **** up and make stupid decisions that ruin the economy and get people laid off.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

If big companies break the law that is one thing... but just because they are successful and don't share the wealth with you because you want it, does not mean you are entitled to it or entitled to have the government forcibly redistribute it for you

A company is not personally responsible for the well being of it's employees.... salaries and compensation are freely negotiated.. and if individuals feel they are treated unfairly, they have the FREEDOM to quit and work elsewhere

And "we republicans" don't inherently want just tax cuts... try spending cuts.. try having the ~50% that pay no income taxes start paying an equal % on every dollar earned as every other citizen.. no exceptions.... try supporting blind and equal treatment by government instead of selective equal treatment... ones like you who support selective equal treatment want equal treatment when it benefits you, and support unequal treatment of others when it benefits you

I am not, nor is anyone else, responsible for what you earn, what you negotiate, or how well you do.. that is on you, ************

I guess what I said went completely over your ******* head. A company that wants tax cuts bolster employment when they perform well should equally have to take personal responsiblity in picking up the tab when their worker get layed off when the heads of those companies make poor decisions that result in workers getting fired, they should not be able to pocket the money from tax cuts and leave the government to clean up their mess. You want to preach that personal responsibility shit then be a doer and not just a talker.

Giving the big companies tax cuts while equally holding them responsible if their actions **** up the economy is fair and equal treatment, not unequal treatment, why the **** should they get tax cuts and not pay the price when they **** up the economy? After all,its not the fault of the laid off workers or the fault of the federal government when big companies **** up and make stupid decisions that ruin the economy and get people laid off.

How many businesses have you ran? I'm guessing ..zero.

 

[Barb]

In the preamble... PROMOTE not provide

Welfare did not have the same meaning as libs think of it today

And in Article 1 section 8, libs also forget to include the ENTIRE sentence... 'General welfare of the UNITED STATES'... AKA the union.... the union of states... not every last individual entity or citizen within the states.... it was never meant to have the government take over the personal responsibility of citizens.... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Now... that being said... I fully support those who give of themselves VOLUNTARILY and of their own free will and give to charities that call to them... but we are in no way to be forced to take over the personal responsibilities of others or of private companies, farmers, etc

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In the preamble... PROMOTE not provide

Welfare did not have the same meaning as libs think of it today

And in Article 1 section 8, libs also forget to include the ENTIRE sentence... 'General welfare of the UNITED STATES'... AKA the union.... the union of states... not every last individual entity or citizen within the states.... it was never meant to have the government take over the personal responsibility of citizens.... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Now... that being said... I fully support those who give of themselves VOLUNTARILY and of their own free will and give to charities that call to them... but we are in no way to be forced to take over the personal responsibilities of others or of private companies, farmers, etc

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

 

[Flaylo]

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

I have a uinque way of expressing myself, but you are right, big businesses should be given tax cuts based on perfromance and efficiency. Republicans want tax cuts for these big businesses without the added stipulation that the companies pay the price for when they **** up and pocket the tax cut money despite poor performance.

 

[Flaylo]

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their **** ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies **** up and put people out of work without a penalty.

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

\
No dickhead, pay ******* attention you asshat. Republicans say tax cuts are needed to bolster job creation, well if thats the case they should only get tax cuts and or continue to get tax cuts if they are bolstering job creation. The tax cuts should only come with the added stipulation that the companies must pay the price if they fail to do what they're supposed to do with the tax cuts, they shouldn't get a ******* free ride.

 

[Si modo]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Have promote and provide come to mean the same thing? They really need to update the NewSpeak lexicon so that I can keep up with it.





Fail.