Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[shintao]

That's not true...Nice try though.

It is completely true. Bad try though.

Spoken like a true liberal...Keep the poor and stupid dependent on the government. You failed.

How many more years do you need to make the poor rich, and the stupid intelligent??

Nice though!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

That's not true...Nice try though.

It is completely true. Bad try though.

Spoken like a true liberal...Keep the poor and stupid dependent on the government. You failed.

Who spoke like a true liberal? Me good god no man!

 

[shintao]

...seriously? Please...PLEASE.....PLLEEEEEEASSEEEE read the 5000 year leap and learn something... here ill link it for you. Amazon.com: The 5000 Year Leap (Original Authorized Edition) (9780880801485): W. Cleon Skousen: Books

your logic is severely flawed in many MANY different ways.

You are in luck. I have plenty of time for you to describe the ways. Elsewise, I can assume you are just trolling. So go ahead, describe the ways................

Government is what creates poverty, freedom creates wealth. ...please learn it.

also, after you read that. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the road to serfdom...then i think youll be educated enough to make an intelligent response to the topic before you.

Oh, I am sure I can rely on you to be comprehending on the subject, having done your reading.

 

[Charles_Main]

...seriously? Please...PLEASE.....PLLEEEEEEASSEEEE read the 5000 year leap and learn something... here ill link it for you. Amazon.com: The 5000 Year Leap (Original Authorized Edition) (9780880801485): W. Cleon Skousen: Books

your logic is severely flawed in many MANY different ways.

You are in luck. I have plenty of time for you to describe the ways. Elsewise, I can assume you are just trolling. So go ahead, describe the ways................

Government is what creates poverty, freedom creates wealth. ...please learn it.

also, after you read that. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the road to serfdom...then i think youll be educated enough to make an intelligent response to the topic before you.

Oh, I am sure I can rely on you to be comprehending on the subject, having done your reading.

looks like that would be an exercise in futility to me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because, government is more trustworthy than big corporations.

Wow... that's ******* crazy. Trust people who cannot easily be held accountable IF AT ALL, more than those who can be sued and shut down for acting badly.

Yep... a real winner.

Yeah doesn't make much sense to me. The people running businesses lose money if they can't be trusted. If they want to make a profit they have to eliminate corruption and dishonesty or they will eventually implode.

Politicians somehow convince people to give them more power when they are corrupt. Doesnt make much sense to me.

 

[Avatar4321]

It is completely true. Bad try though.

Spoken like a true liberal...Keep the poor and stupid dependent on the government. You failed.

How many more years do you need to make the poor rich, and the stupid intelligent??

Nice though!!!

Why is it our job to make the poor rich and the stupid intelligent?

I'm all for Individual charity and ministering to the needs of people, but the only person responsible for making themselves rich is the individual. They need to find a way to work hard, be industrious, and be thrifty. The only way a person can become intelligent is by learning for themselves through personal experiences and through the experience and observation of others who are honest.

If you expect the government to do either for you, then you are going to be severeley disappointed.

 

[shintao]

...seriously? Please...PLEASE.....PLLEEEEEEASSEEEE read the 5000 year leap and learn something... here ill link it for you. Amazon.com: The 5000 Year Leap (Original Authorized Edition) (9780880801485): W. Cleon Skousen: Books

your logic is severely flawed in many MANY different ways.

You are in luck. I have plenty of time for you to describe the ways. Elsewise, I can assume you are just trolling. So go ahead, describe the ways................

Government is what creates poverty, freedom creates wealth. ...please learn it.

also, after you read that. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the road to serfdom...then i think youll be educated enough to make an intelligent response to the topic before you.

Oh, I am sure I can rely on you to be comprehending on the subject, having done your reading.

looks like that would be an exercise in futility to me.

Considering liberty is asking me to order a book, then read it, then find this thread 3 months from now, and respond to no question asked, I guess wag my head, it prolly is completely futile. But I was kind enough to listen if liberty would care to esplain or debate the issue. Of course only liberty can carry on from here with whatever it is he/she has in mind.

 

[shintao]

Why is it our job to make the poor rich and the stupid intelligent?

Hmm, any particular reason why you see it as a job? Do you believe yourself to live in a Christian Nation, and are a Christian believer? If not, do you claim to be part of the human race and a member of the American society that made you rich and educated you? If not, did you take the oath to the American Creed? If not to any of the three, I can think of no further reasons why it might be a duty to an outsider or taker.

I'm all for Individual charity and ministering to the needs of people, but the only person responsible for making themselves rich is the individual.

Yes, of course that might be true in Mexico, but here we are called upon to help others also become rich, manly because WE THE PEOPLE are only as strong as our weakest link. And I might remind you, the constitution does not say, I THE INDIVIDUAL.

They need to find a way to work hard, be industrious, and be thrifty.

Yes indeed, that guy digging a ditch is working very hard, very industrious, and not getting by in the capitalist system where the means is controlled by a few I THE INDIVIDUALS.

The only way a person can become intelligent is by learning for themselves through personal experiences and through the experience and observation of others who are honest.

That public education just might have a bearing on who becomes intelligent, but personal experiences help, so we should make the poor CEOs, so they might learn what CEOs do.

If you expect the government to do either for you, then you are going to be severeley disappointed.

I understand a lot of people have no faith in their government until they need a government hand, then they want to be first in line. Then others refuse any government help or use any amenity's of the country, and wouldn't even use any resources. They live down by the ocean where they catch their fish and eat it raw, and sleep in a raft so they won't touch or tarnish the soil of America. They are truly free, beholden to no one for anything. People without a country, asking for nothing. Then we have the takers, who want to take resources, use American protection, work in our country, live among us and take what they can, but they want no part of repaying for anything they take. Those that help them are gone, so why should they help anyone else they say. And they greedily dig their hands into the pie when it comes by, but refuse to help pay for the meal.

So where do you find yourself?

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

What is really wrong is for Congress to create these unsustainable entitlement programs and then for Democrats to put forward the LYING ASS, DECEITFUL argument that any attempt by Republicans to have a serious discussion on the morality of creating a demoralized and permanent underclass with such programs AND face the hard reality and facts that these programs WILL collapse unless they are either fixed or eliminated -is Republicans "hating" the poor. It is actually more legitimate to argue that Democrats seek to create a permanent underclass living at the edge of poverty because they consider such people their natural constituents -so creating more of them works to their benefit. Of course they want more people addicted to government handouts. All while Democrats campaign by whipping up class envy - urging this underclass to both live as parasites off others at the very same time they tell them how "unfair" it is their hosts have it better than their parasites and still aren't paying their "fair" share. Of course the parasites pay nothing and we are reaching a critical tipping point. When the percentage of parasites reaches critical mass one of two things happen. Either their hosts decide they have had enough and cut them off -or the parasites bleed their hosts dry and the entire system comes down. Which is what happened in Greece. And STILL Democrats campaign by encouraging the very underclass they helped to expand larger than it would have without these immoral entitlement programs to despise the very people they NEED in order to continue living off these immoral welfare programs. Just one of many reasons I could never be a Democrat.

But let's get back to the point you think you were making by pretending that any attempt to end these undesirable, immoral, counterproductive or unsustainable programs is somehow "unconstitutional". PROMOTE the general welfare means just that -it does NOT mean PROVIDING for it, it is not redistribution of the wealth by taking it from those who earned it and giving it those who did not and it is not creating unsustainable, immoral or counterproductive entitlement programs and then demanding the nation just suck it up and accept the fact there is nothing anyone is EVER going to do to seriously address the fact they are DOOMED TO COLLAPSE. "PROMOTE" meant the very same thing back in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted that it means today and "promote" is NOT "provide" and it sure as hell does not mean IMPOSE someone's perverted definition of "general welfare" on everyone else either. And THAT is where you lose the argument entirely. That is YOUR definition of what is good for the general welfare -but there are MILLIONS of others who disagree and believe is it harming our general welfare. So it is an issue handled at the ballot box, not by the Supreme Court as a constitutional matter! And isn't it amazing that the people back in 1787 did NOT believe they had just voted in favor of a Constitution that created a welfare system! Did you pay attention to what happened in Greece when their reality smacked them between the eyes and they found out government really isn't a magic entity with a bottomless wallet after all, that all the government's money comes from other people and they got to see what happens when the masses are raised and educated to believe they are not expected to provide for themselves first and that the people they had been soaking with the bill all along were broke too? Riots. The Greeks saddled themselves with a couple of generations now who haven't a clue how their own system works or why it was broke -all they knew was the free lunch they had been promised wasn't free after all and what happens when the masses are encouraged to be never-ending parasites upon the productive even as they demonize them. Gee, did THAT promote the general welfare in Greece when they got their own citizens so sickly addicted to unsustainable social entitlement programs? No -what they did was set up a system that totally destroyed their own general welfare and it resulted in RIOTS AND FLAMES. And that is exactly the same path Democrats INSIST we go down right here too. Even after seeing what is happening in Europe as one EU member after another is coming up that same harsh reality that creating unsustainable entitlement programs is a historically PROVEN failure. Which tells me that same result seen in Greece is actually the true goal of Democrats -or they are lying ass weasel cowards who can't bring themselves to tell their own constituents the truth about what our own government has done and is in the process of doing to the nation that is in truth DESTROYING our general welfare and when it collapses, it will be disaster.

Democrats and leftists have NO constitutional right to employ the VERY tactics we already know for a fact destroys the general welfare -all while they lie to our faces in every election insisting creating ever more unsustainable welfare programs and expanding and hardening a permanent underclass is somehow doing the opposite of what it really is.

You CLEARLY have no understanding of the Constitution whatsoever because that document doesn't ENTITLE anyone to a dime in this country, much less a dime that belongs to another person. There is NO constitutional right to any government-provided social programs, entitlement programs, welfare or ANYTHING that is paid for by someone else. If it requires the money OR services of another human being in order to get it -you have NO RIGHT TO IT. It can be GIVEN to you or withheld as WE THE PEOPLE who are actually footing the bill see fit. GOVERNMENT is not footing the bill -it is us and we don't HAVE to give our money to anyone else unless we CHOOSE to do so -and that choice to stop doing so is also ours. Because we are also a representative republic -which means through our elected officials, WE THE PEOPLE get to decide the rules we agree to be governed by and that includes whether to even have such programs, or modify or totally do away with them. And many Republicans have been elected to do just that so when they bring up the issue, they are actually doing exactly what their constituents elected them to do in the first place! Since there is NO SUCH THING as a constitutional right to a welfare state and no constitutional right to the fruits of another person's labor, then deciding whether to have, keep, modify or end all such programs even when it is obvious they are failing at their mission, counterproductive, immoral or unsustainable is NEVER a constitutional issue whatsoever.

 

[shintao]

What is really wrong is for Congress to create these unsustainable entitlement programs and then for Democrats to put forward the LYING ASS, DECEITFUL argument that any attempt by Republicans to have a serious discussion on the morality of creating a demoralized and permanent underclass with such programs AND face the hard reality and facts that these programs WILL collapse unless they are either fixed or eliminated -is Republicans "hating" the poor.

Hmm, hated huh? I thought it was pity, but whatever................

It is actually more legitimate to argue that Democrats seek to create a permanent underclass living at the edge of poverty because they consider such people their natural constituents -so creating more of them works to their benefit.

Why is that legitimate, when the cause is con capitalism, that by it's very definition creates an underclass for the benefit of the few who reap the rewards?

Of course they want more people addicted to government handouts. All while Democrats campaign by whipping up class envy - urging this underclass to both live as parasites off others at the very same time they tell them how "unfair" it is their hosts have it better than their parasites and still aren't paying their "fair" share.

Are you reading from the grasshopper & the ant story tonight? Yes, it is hard to imagine you argue the rich are paying their fair share dude. I mean there is this 13 Trillion in debt, and I don't recall it benefiting anyone I know. We have over 3,000 ME coffins and 10,000 running around without faces and limbs, and I don't recall benefiting from that either. Did that ME War butter your stock portfolio?

Of course the parasites pay nothing and we are reaching a critical tipping point. When the percentage of parasites reaches critical mass one of two things happen. Either their hosts decide they have had enough and cut them off -or the parasites bleed their hosts dry and the entire system comes down.

Oh keep the faith, there are other choices like cutting the military and the 53% of the budget thy represent. Hope that doesn't cut into your stocks.

And STILL Democrats campaign by encouraging the very underclass they helped to expand larger than it would have without these immoral entitlement programs to despise the very people they NEED in order to continue living off these immoral welfare programs. Just one of many reasons I could never be a Democrat.

So now you are saying helping the poor is immoral?? And feeding the poor is despising them. Oh My!!! Have you lost your, ah, those little round things that once rattled around inside your head? LMAO! Ok, you got to tell us why caring for the poor is "immoral."

Democrats and leftists have NO constitutional right to employ the VERY tactics we already know for a fact destroys the general welfare -all while they lie to our faces in every election insisting creating ever more unsustainable welfare programs and expanding and hardening a permanent underclass is somehow doing the opposite of what it really is.

Ahh, no constitutional right huh? The Supreme Court affirmed that right, so what is your problem with Cardozo's ruling? Sounds like you are desperate and grasping for a rope.

You CLEARLY have no understanding of the Constitution whatsoever because that document doesn't ENTITLE anyone to a dime in this country, much less a dime that belongs to another person.

Ahh, and therein lies your problem, you have no understanding of the General Welfare clause, the history of it's conception, the throwing out of Madison law and affirming Hamilton as the standard bearer. Outside of that, your wrong!!!! LMAO!

``The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison,'' Cardozo wrote. He said that in response to the nationwide calamity that began in 1929, Congress had enacted various measures conducive to the general welfare, including old-age benefits and unemployment compensation. Only a national, not a state, power can serve the interests of all, Cardozo declared.

What Is The "General Welfare"

Oh well, you will get over it,.....I really pity you and anybody you know.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a ******* dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Not saying the OP left the discussion because I asked them this but, they left shortly after I posted this. So would one of you socialist defending morons care to take a swing at this and give your views on the comment I made?

 

[Flaylo]

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Not saying the OP left the discussion because I asked them this but, they left shortly after I posted this. So would one of you socialist defending morons care to take a swing at this and give your views on the comment I made?

Do you view having to register at 18 years of age for selective service as unconstitutional because its required? Dpo you view having to pay a speeding ticket when you drive over speed limit unconstitutional because you have pay something you don't want to pay? Did you view Bush as acting unconstitutional when he continued a war in Iraq that was unjusitified and against the will of the majority of the citizens of the United States? My point dipshit is that there are a lot of thing that we as US citizens are already forced to do whether we like it or not and taxes is one of them so your questio is stupid as ****, you see where I'm going with this?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Not saying the OP left the discussion because I asked them this but, they left shortly after I posted this. So would one of you socialist defending morons care to take a swing at this and give your views on the comment I made?

Do you view having to register at 18 years of age for selective service as unconstitutional because its required? Dpo you view having to pay a speeding ticket when you drive over speed limit unconstitutional because you have pay something you don't want to pay? Did you view Bush as acting unconstitutional when he continued a war in Iraq that was unjusitified and against the will of the majority of the citizens of the United States? My point dipshit is that there are a lot of thing that we as US citizens are already forced to do whether we like it or not and taxes is one of them so your questio is stupid as ****, you see where I'm going with this?

I asked you first.

 

[Flaylo]

Because, government is more trustworthy than big corporations.

You mean the George Bush government or the Osama Obama government?

It is sort of stupid to assign government the duty to protect us from big abusive corporations, such as British Petroleum, and the put conservatives, who love big abusive corporations, in charge of government.

The next thing the Republican asswipes and Tea Bastards will be saying is that big businesses go corrupt, abuse people and **** up the economy is because of government involvement or big government and if left alone they would do no wrong and the whole country would be perfect. Personal responsibility only applies to poor people whom the rightwing asswipes asumes lacks it, but doesn't apply to the corporate corrupt charlatans that Tea Bastards and Republicans lobby for, its always the fault of big government.

 

[shintao]

Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Certainly. That comes from the Preamble, that begins with WE THE PEOPLE, and the duties we have to other people in our society. We The People, of the United States of America. In order to form a more perfect union. Establish justice, and ensure domestic tranqulity.......

This is our duty as citizens of this country to all the We the People. Domestic refers to tranquility in your home and in your society of We the People. It is more than just a duty to your family, but to the Union, towards a perfect Union, and if it isn't right, it is your duty as part of society to make it right. Justice isn't to you alone, but to We The People.

A good example might be, when a war comes up, do you leave home to defend only your family and only your families freedoms? Maybe you are too old to go. What then? Does someone else go for you to ensure domestic tranquility in your home and society? So you can see, the clause is about We The People, helping one another for the betterment of society.

 

[Flaylo]

Not saying the OP left the discussion because I asked them this but, they left shortly after I posted this. So would one of you socialist defending morons care to take a swing at this and give your views on the comment I made?

Do you view having to register at 18 years of age for selective service as unconstitutional because its required? Dpo you view having to pay a speeding ticket when you drive over speed limit unconstitutional because you have pay something you don't want to pay? Did you view Bush as acting unconstitutional when he continued a war in Iraq that was unjusitified and against the will of the majority of the citizens of the United States? My point dipshit is that there are a lot of thing that we as US citizens are already forced to do whether we like it or not and taxes is one of them so your questio is stupid as ****, you see where I'm going with this?

I asked you first.

If you answer my question the way I know you will you argument becomes moot. Those Civil Rights Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation that Republicans and Tea Bastards gloat about as their handowork both went against the will of the majority of "the people" and against the "states' right" to discriminate and enslave African Americans, I guess you would call that unconstitutional too right? Oh wait a minute, Rand Paul already said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it basically "forces" businesses not to discriminate. Dickhead.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Certainly. That comes from the Preamble, that begins with WE THE PEOPLE, and they duties we have to other people in our society. We The People, of the United States of America. In order to form a more perfect union. Establish justice, and ensure domestic tranqulity.......

This is our duty as citizens of this country to all the We the People. Domestic refers to tranquility in your home and in your society of We the People. It is more than just a duty to your family, but to the Union, towards a perfect Union, and if it isn't right, it is your duty as part of society to make it right. Justice isn't to you alone, but to We The People.

A good example might be, when a war comes up, do you leave home to defend only your family and only your families freedoms? Maybe you are too old to go. What then? Does someone else go for you to ensure domestic tranquility in your home and society? So you can see, the clause is about We The People, helping one another for the betterment of society.

You are so far off target I really do not know where to begin. To force a law on 65 percent of Americans is not insuring domestic Tranquility it creates unrest and anger

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you view having to register at 18 years of age for selective service as unconstitutional because its required? Dpo you view having to pay a speeding ticket when you drive over speed limit unconstitutional because you have pay something you don't want to pay? Did you view Bush as acting unconstitutional when he continued a war in Iraq that was unjusitified and against the will of the majority of the citizens of the United States? My point dipshit is that there are a lot of thing that we as US citizens are already forced to do whether we like it or not and taxes is one of them so your questio is stupid as ****, you see where I'm going with this?

I asked you first.

If you answer my question the way I know you will you argument becomes moot. Those Civil Rights Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation that Republicans and Tea Bastards gloat about as their handowork both went against the will of the majority of "the people" and against the "states' right" to discriminate and enslave African Americans, I guess you would call that unconstitutional too right? Oh wait a minute, Rand Paul already said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it basically "forces" businesses not to discriminate. Dickhead.

Stop ***** footing around ae you going to defend your opinion or are you going to ***** out.

 

[Flaylo]

Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Certainly. That comes from the Preamble, that begins with WE THE PEOPLE, and they duties we have to other people in our society. We The People, of the United States of America. In order to form a more perfect union. Establish justice, and ensure domestic tranqulity.......

This is our duty as citizens of this country to all the We the People. Domestic refers to tranquility in your home and in your society of We the People. It is more than just a duty to your family, but to the Union, towards a perfect Union, and if it isn't right, it is your duty as part of society to make it right. Justice isn't to you alone, but to We The People.

A good example might be, when a war comes up, do you leave home to defend only your family and only your families freedoms? Maybe you are too old to go. What then? Does someone else go for you to ensure domestic tranquility in your home and society? So you can see, the clause is about We The People, helping one another for the betterment of society.

You are so far off target I really do not know where to begin. To force a law on 65 percent of Americans is not insuring domestic Tranquility it creates unrest and anger

Juts like forcing the Civil Rights Acts on to the majority of white people is unconstitutional because its basically going to piss off the majority in the country who are white, not to mention that Bush keeping US troops in Iraq against the will of the majority Americans and making them foot the bill financially is ensuring domestic tranquility, you're such a smart and consistent little fucktard.

 

[Flaylo]

I asked you first.

If you answer my question the way I know you will you argument becomes moot. Those Civil Rights Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation that Republicans and Tea Bastards gloat about as their handowork both went against the will of the majority of "the people" and against the "states' right" to discriminate and enslave African Americans, I guess you would call that unconstitutional too right? Oh wait a minute, Rand Paul already said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it basically "forces" businesses not to discriminate. Dickhead.

Stop ***** footing around ae you going to defend your opinion or are you going to ***** out.

If you read the ******* bill correctly you would know that its forcing people to do anything and all people need some kind of medical care/insurance.