Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Micky G. Jagger]

Keep the poor and stupid dependent on the government.

How are you dependent on the government?

How is it fair to me, a taxpayer, that the money I earned go to anyone else but me?

How is if fair for you not to contribute to the government that provides the common defense?

I should not be penalized for someone else's down fall.

How are you being penalized for someone else's downfall, dude?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

there is no reason for anyone on a government program to try and do better.

There are many reasons for you to try and do better, dude.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Bottom line is the Davy Crockett speech is bogus and Congress provided financial relief to an individual under its power to tax and spend to provide for the common defense.

OH so now it's just the bottom line of his speech that is supposed to be bogus?

What speech, dude?

 

[saveliberty]

Well troll, do you have a solution?

So what's your solution you stupid moron? Keeping the lazy and stupid on welfare sucking up tax payer money?

Listen troll, social programs to help with uplift because resources available to the rich and better off are unavailable to the poor.

I see they have government sponsored cell phone service. I probably missed the limo service to work program. You simply cannot raise the poor by stealing money from others. We used to say get more education a pull yourself up. Now government runs the education business and people are learning less all the time.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

According to the record Crocket voted in the negative on this bill.

Yep, Crockett voted with the losing side. The majority had no problem passing a law providing financial relief for one poor family, which proves that during the early years of the Republic, Congress had no problem with taxing and spending to provide for the individual welfare of a deserving person living in poverty.

The bill from the Senate, [No. 111] entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown, widow of the late Major General Brown,"

I thought you said Crockett gave his bogus speech against a bill to provide relief for the wife of a naval hero.

was read the third time:

And on the question, "Shall the bill pass?"

It passed in the affirmative,
Yeas ... 97,
Nays ... 74.

It appears that a majority of the members of the House broadly and loosely interpreted the power of Congress to tax and spend to provide for the common defense. The majority interpreted it broadly and loosely enough to empower Congress to make a law to provide financial support for a poor and penniless widow of a soldier, who didn't qualify for a pension.

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html">House Journal</a> --WEDNESDAY, April 2, 1828.

pp. 469-470

Your link is bogus, dude.

On the day prior (April 1st)

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill from the Senate, [No. 111] entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown, widow of the late Major General Brown;" and, after some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. M'Lean reported the same, without amendment.

The question was then put, Shall the bill be read a third time?

And passed in the affirmative,
Yeas ... 88,
Nays ... 77.

Mr. Crocket was a nay.

p.466

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html">House Journal</a> --TUESDAY, April 1, 1828.

Yep, Crockett voted with the side that lost. The majority interpreted the Constitution to grant Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the financial welfare of one widow and her children, in the name of the common defense of the nation, because she didn't quality for a pension.

PS: Your link is bogus.

The exact wording of Senate bill 111: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Yep. That's the bill.

You need to back up one page from here to see Mr. Clark was the speaker on page 2087.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

page 2086 confirms Mr. Crocket's presence, but no speech by him.

Yep. Crockett made no speech. The one posted by Lonestar_logic is bogus.

The only comment made was that Mr. Crocket offered to pay the sum himself.

Nope, you're wrong. Crockett offered to pay "his quota" of the amount of money the widow would receive if the bill passed.

The amount was half pay of General Brown for five years as I read elsewhere.

Nope, you're wrong. The amount of relief provided for in the bill was equal to a little over ten months of the monthly pay and emoluments the General was earning when he died on February 24, 1828.

 

[saveliberty]

According to the record Crocket voted in the negative on this bill.

Yep, Crockett voted with the losing side. The majority had no problem passing a law providing financial relief for one poor family, which proves that during the early years of the Republic, Congress had no problem with taxing and spending to provide for the individual welfare of a deserving person living in poverty.

The bill from the Senate, [No. 111] entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown, widow of the late Major General Brown,"

I thought you said Crockett gave his bogus speech against a bill to provide relief for the wife of a naval hero.


It appears that a majority of the members of the House broadly and loosely interpreted the power of Congress to tax and spend to provide for the common defense. The majority interpreted it broadly and loosely enough to empower Congress to make a law to provide financial support for a poor and penniless widow of a soldier, who didn't qualify for a pension.

Your link is bogus, dude.

Yep, Crockett voted with the side that lost. The majority interpreted the Constitution to grant Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the financial welfare of one widow and her children, in the name of the common defense of the nation, because she didn't quality for a pension.

PS: Your link is bogus.


Yep. That's the bill.

Yep. Crockett made no speech. The one posted by Lonestar_logic is bogus.

The only comment made was that Mr. Crocket offered to pay the sum himself.

Nope, you're wrong. Crockett offered to pay "his quota" of the amount of money the widow would receive if the bill passed.

The amount was half pay of General Brown for five years as I read elsewhere.

Nope, you're wrong. The amount of relief provided for in the bill was equal to a little over ten months of the monthly pay and emoluments the General was earning when he died on February 24, 1828.

The question you have to ask yourself is, do you really want me to reconstruct all of this one more time and kick your lying ass twice in less than a week? The really funny part is, you aren't even arguing the subject any more, just some side point that you got embarassed badly on. Seriously, I'm not going to whip out a telescope to check if your ego is bruised or not.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family.

The bill for the relief of Mrs. Brown, received from the Senate, passed the House on April 22, 1928, on a vote of 97 to 74, and was returned to the Senate. Crockett voted against the bill, but his side lost. The speech of the day was made by Representative Clark from New York in favor of the bill.

Here's the closing of Mr. Clark's speech.

Dude as I said back pay forservices rendered is not a social program.

Dude, the widow had already received the General's back pay.

Senate Bill 111 was to provide her a "gratuity" because the General left her poor and penniless and she didn't qualify for a military pension based on the General's service in the army.

The General had lost all of his money due to "fluctuations of commerce."

 

[Big Fitz]

How is if fair for you not to contribute to the government that provides the common defense?

Because it is constitutionally provided for, and a proper use of government. As are courts and law enforcement, weights and measures, consumer protection, treaties with foreign nations, and settling disputes between the states.

How are you being penalized for someone else's downfall, dude?

If money is being taken from me by force of law or threat of imprisonment, this is theft. What fuels the need for taxes? Government programs and duties. When the programs grow, the amount of taxes needed grow as well. This means that when the thieves from the IRS show up they take a larger chunk of my rightfully earned cash. What is the fastest growing sector of public programs? Welfare. The morality of why is irrelevant, for it is not their job. It is the job of private charities.

Why is charity not the job of government?

Because they have, by law removed free will. I no longer have a choice in whether or not I wish to support a particular charity someone else has felt the need to support. I am forced to participate anyway even if I find the the charity or cause repugnant. Someone created a law saying I must pay some of my money into it or be fined or jailed. This is not charity. This is not good. This is evil for the person who felt the draw to help those in need obviously felt so guilty they could not bear they could not do more, and felt it was better to try and force others against their will because those who do desire to help are not enough. Otherwise, the private charity would be doing better. So anger and envy drive them to steal via the law.

The founding fathers knew this and that's why for decades... till about Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat, rode to power on populism. Then the resolve slacked off. After the civil war, the floodgates opened up as crusaders inspired by the 'success' of the abolitionists tried to find other 'good causes' in which to improve the lives of others less fortunate on an industrial scale since their own paltry efforts, and zeal were not compatible.

The job of taking care of those less fortunate falls to the individual and private charity or church. That is it's rightful place. Where one can give if they feel compelled to. You can whine about the fact that too many need so much all you want. Their need gives them no right on the property of others. From each according to their means to those according to their needs is a recipe for disaster.

You want to live under that? Move to Cuba or Venezuela.

 

[saveliberty]

Going to bed now. I'll deal with Mick tomorrow.

 

[SuMar]

Keep the poor and stupid dependent on the government.

How are you dependent on the government?

I see you really didn't read my post.

How is it fair to me, a taxpayer, that the money I earned go to anyone else but me?

How is if fair for you not to contribute to the government that provides the common defense?

Typical lib to duck a question.

I should not be penalized for someone else's down fall.

How are you being penalized for someone else's downfall, dude?

I pay taxes and don't have a say in the matter where I can allocate where to be distributed. Do away with welfare, section 8, WIC etc... Teach a man to fish...

 

[SuMar]

I should not be penalized for someone else's down fall.

How are you being penalized for someone else's downfall, dude?

If I want to give money to the poor, I will donate to a charity.

 

[Flaylo]

So what's your solution you stupid moron? Keeping the lazy and stupid on welfare sucking up tax payer money?

Listen troll, social programs to help with uplift because resources available to the rich and better off are unavailable to the poor.

I see they have government sponsored cell phone service. I probably missed the limo service to work program. You simply cannot raise the poor by stealing money from others. We used to say get more education a pull yourself up. Now government runs the education business and people are learning less all the time.

The ppor people are *NOT* stealing money from rich people its the other ******* way around, the rich are stealing from the government and the poor when they ship their companies and operations overseas. As I've already told your dumbass their are even college educated people, more educated than the rich in a lot of cases that can't get jobs because there are none, not because they're not pulling themselves up or being lazy or whatever bullshit excuse you like coming up with, the reality is that you can do all the things that people say you should do and not have a job. Republitards have no proven programs or agendas to help the poor, they too ******* busy trying to cut taxes for the rich.

 

[Flaylo]

So what's your solution you stupid moron? Keeping the lazy and stupid on welfare sucking up tax payer money?

Listen troll, social programs to help with uplift because resources available to the rich and better off are unavailable to the poor.

The only reason they are unavailable is because there is no reason for anyone on a government program to try and do better. Why do most children delay moving out from their parents home?

Thats bullshit and you know, having loads of ******* cash means having politicians and lobbying groups in your pockets and overall better everything compared to the poor, you dickheaded Republitards have such a low opinion of poor people and the working poor despite the fact that they put in the most hours working and sometimes work two and three jobs to support their families, take away everything from some rich snot nosed kid who has had everything given to him on a silver platter from mommy and daddy and he'd be ill prepared to compete and survive in the real world.

 

[Flaylo]

I should not be penalized for someone else's down fall.

How are you being penalized for someone else's downfall, dude?

If I want to give money to the poor, I will donate to a charity.

Your tax payer dollars goes to a lot of other things that you don't have a choice over dickhead, and I assure you that most of them you will not like if you found out about them so why zero in on the poor and with that charity talk bullshit? The working poor also pay texes just like you do and their tax payer dollars go towards to government too so how are you ******* better than they are?

 

[ClarisaSaunders]

It is no wonder that Flaylo's account says suspended with his typical lefty extreme obscenity name calling rants.
I am a conservative and a Christian and I don't mind the government utilizing my tax dollars to assist my fellow citizens. However, the entitlement attitude has gotten out of hand.
As a nurse I see TONS of medicaid fraud, especially in the area I work (labor and delivery). The system is being abused and is in desperate need for an intervention. I, personally, would love to see drug testing become mandatory to obtain and maintain government benefits. I had to take one to obtain my job - the 20 year old having her 4th baby should have to do the same. Oh, and let me tell you, there is nothing more frustrating than taking a medicaid patient to their car when they have been discharged and their baby daddy pulls up in a Lincoln Navigator (no lie, my jaw dropped), while my tax paying self walked out to my Dodge Neon after my 12 hour shift! This abuse happens ALL the time!

That said, I believe that helping people - temporarily - is fine. It is what we are called to do, whether is be through our churches or state funded programs. Just keep in mind, bleeding heart liberals, when the people who make the money have their pockets turned out like the poor Monopoly man, where are you going to get your money from to fund all of these programs???

 

[Flaylo]

It is no wonder that Flaylo's account says suspended with his typical lefty extreme obscenity name calling rants.
I am a conservative and a Christian and I don't mind the government utilizing my tax dollars to assist my fellow citizens. However, the entitlement attitude has gotten out of hand.
As a nurse I see TONS of medicaid fraud, especially in the area I work (labor and delivery). The system is being abused and is in desperate need for an intervention. I, personally, would love to see drug testing become mandatory to obtain and maintain government benefits. I had to take one to obtain my job - the 20 year old having her 4th baby should have to do the same. Oh, and let me tell you, there is nothing more frustrating than taking a medicaid patient to their car when they have been discharged and their baby daddy pulls up in a Lincoln Navigator (no lie, my jaw dropped), while my tax paying self walked out to my Dodge Neon after my 12 hour shift! This abuse happens ALL the time!

That said, I believe that helping people - temporarily - is fine. It is what we are called to do, whether is be through our churches or state funded programs. Just keep in mind, bleeding heart liberals, when the people who make the money have their pockets turned out like the poor Monopoly man, where are you going to get your money from to fund all of these programs???

Whjy should a 20 year old with four children be subject to mandatory drug testing? Other than your stereotyping bullshit there is no other reason, poor people are not abusing Medicad, you provide stupid ******* examples, what does some "babydaddy" in an expensive car have to do with the mother of the children needing Medicaid? I tell what the **** it is, its pure racist, stereotyping bullshit, your coded language can't even hide that. The real farud is when people pay hundreds of dollars to medical insurance companies who then back out of covering patients, thats ******* fraud but I don't hear you saying shit about that.

 

[SuMar]

How are you being penalized for someone else's downfall, dude?

If I want to give money to the poor, I will donate to a charity.

Your tax payer dollars goes to a lot of other things that you don't have a choice over dickhead, and I assure you that most of them you will not like if you found out about them so why zero in on the poor and with that charity talk bullshit? The working poor also pay texes just like you do and their tax payer dollars go towards to government too so how are you ******* better than they are?

I have no problem with the working poor since they are able to go out and work. I have a problem with the ones who sit at home and expect the government to take care of them. But you should know that if you had been keeping up with my posts...You really are a moron aren't you?

 

[Flaylo]

If I want to give money to the poor, I will donate to a charity.

Your tax payer dollars goes to a lot of other things that you don't have a choice over dickhead, and I assure you that most of them you will not like if you found out about them so why zero in on the poor and with that charity talk bullshit? The working poor also pay texes just like you do and their tax payer dollars go towards to government too so how are you ******* better than they are?

I have no problem with the working poor since they are able to go out and work. I have a problem with the ones who sit at home and expect the government to take care of them. But you should know that if you had been keeping up with my posts...You really are a moron aren't you?

Moron, the poor includes working poor who actually make up the majority of the workforce, the ones who sit around and are lazy are not the majority so why play a dumb ass magnifying glass?

 

[SuMar]

Your tax payer dollars goes to a lot of other things that you don't have a choice over dickhead, and I assure you that most of them you will not like if you found out about them so why zero in on the poor and with that charity talk bullshit? The working poor also pay texes just like you do and their tax payer dollars go towards to government too so how are you ******* better than they are?

I have no problem with the working poor since they are able to go out and work. I have a problem with the ones who sit at home and expect the government to take care of them. But you should know that if you had been keeping up with my posts...You really are a moron aren't you?

Moron, the poor includes working poor who actually make up the majority of the workforce, the ones who sit around and are lazy are not the majority so why play a dumb ass magnifying glass?

So which group are you in...welfare section 8 welfare collecting crowd or the poor working class?

 

[SuMar]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI]YouTube - Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!![/ame]​

So how is this working out for everybody? Obama sure has a lot of folks fooled.