"Smaller government" advocates

[danielpalos]

Article 1, Section 1

I looked at that section. It doesn't use the words "food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc".

both promote and provide are terms used regarding the general welfare in our federal Constitution.

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

You claimed that what it means. YOU have to prove YOUR claim.

Typical pothead answer.

Both terms; it is a self-evident Truth.

 

[easyt65]

If we could only get the rest of the world to 'play nice'....

 

[danielpalos]

If we could only get the rest of the world to 'play nice'....

a more perfect Union of federal States at the UN level could enable such a view.

 

[leftwinger]

I know, let's make enemies with the second largest religion in the world,

"We" did not make any enemies. "They" have been on a mass murdering spree since way way back.

 

[leftwinger]

454,301:1 'congress people' in (2,987 seats) China.

733,103:1 for USA (435 members of Congress.)

As posted above, ideal representative number is 38,500:1

We need bigger, not small government if only in the sense of lots more reps.

"We" got all we can afford. Deal with it. No more of these over-paid 3-day crooks.

 

[Conservative65]

I looked at that section. It doesn't use the words "food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc".

both promote and provide are terms used regarding the general welfare in our federal Constitution.

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

You claimed that what it means. YOU have to prove YOUR claim.

Typical pothead answer.

Both terms; it is a self-evident Truth.

Truth requires supporting evidence. You've provided nothing but an unfounded claim.

 

[Conservative65]

Typical argument from a pothead.

typical non sequitur from a non-pot head. any more deflections or diversions? thc too low in your system to come up with better arguments?

Any less willingness to admit you support the use of drugs because you use them?

dear, everybody uses drugs. our federal government is the largest purchaser of drugs in the world. only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy are repugnant to our supreme laws of the land regardless of drug use.

What drugs do you say I use?

ever get a prescription instead of a mere, recommendation?

So you equate prescription medication for a medical problem with drugs used by addicts?

 

[easyt65]

If we could only get the rest of the world to 'play nice'....

a more perfect Union of federal States at the UN level could enable such a view.

The U.N. is a complete and utter sham that should be shut down! As President I would declare to the U.N. the Unites States was pulling out of the U.N. due to it's recent (decades) track record of being completely USELESS - no more BILLIONS in DUES, no more HQ here in the US - you don't have to go home, but you have to leave HERE!

The U.N. was designed to be an organization where nations came together to resolve problems, fight injustices, and help the people of the world. HOW MANY 'ISIS' and 'Africa' slaughters have they sat back and watched as Christians were massacred? How many times have the 'Russia's' of the world have militarily taken over the 'Crimea's of the world without as much as slapping them on the wrist let alone banning together to pressure the offending / aggressive country?

Now the UN is putting together a 'Climate Change' Tribunal to punish offenders?! Well THANK GOD! We can finally forget about the slaughter of innocents / Christians by terrorists, ignore the aggressive expansions of nations by military actions, forget the coming nuclear arms race in the Middle Easy and start bringing those vile carbon emitter criminals to justice!

 

[rightwinger]

If we could only get the rest of the world to 'play nice'....

a more perfect Union of federal States at the UN level could enable such a view.

The U.N. is a complete and utter sham that should be shut down! As President I would declare to the U.N. the Unites States was pulling out of the U.N. due to it's recent (decades) track record of being completely USELESS - no more BILLIONS in DUES, no more HQ here in the US - you don't have to go home, but you have to leave HERE!

The U.N. was designed to be an organization where nations came together to resolve problems, fight injustices, and help the people of the world. HOW MANY 'ISIS' and 'Africa' slaughters have they sat back and watched as Christians were massacred? How many times have the 'Russia's' of the world have militarily taken over the 'Crimea's of the world without as much as slapping them on the wrist let alone banning together to pressure the offending / aggressive country?

Now the UN is putting together a 'Climate Change' Tribunal to punish offenders?! Well THANK GOD! We can finally forget about the slaughter of innocents / Christians by terrorists, ignore the aggressive expansions of nations by military actions, forget the coming nuclear arms race in the Middle Easy and start bringing those vile carbon emitter criminals to justice!

You sound like a John Bircher

Amazing how things don't change in 70 years

 

[Contumacious]

how is wanting a large military equate to being in favor of big government?

the military has its own set of laws; we dont have to create new ones. the idiotic Left just doesnt get it; or they do get it but cant stop using straw men and red herrings to make their arguments. by smaller government nobody means no government at all, they mean fewer moronic regulations, and less interference in roles that should be played by parents and local government

The Founding Fathers wanted NO STANDING ARMIES. Small Government means NO STANDING ARMIES.


The ONLY reason we need the "War on Terror" is because the sons of bitches in DC feel the need to deploy the armed forces somewhere to murder innocent women and children. And lately those folks have decided to retaliate.


.

good one genius!!


how did that turn out?

HUH?


Try again in English.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's letting the level of government for which the Constitution specifies has authority over decisions makes it.

Show me where the Constitution states such terms as food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc.

Standards for education, according to the Constitution, lies with the States not the federal government.

Article 1, Section 1

I looked at that section. It doesn't use the words "food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc".

both promote and provide are terms used regarding the general welfare in our federal Constitution.

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where is our specifically enumerated war on poverty?

Show me where the Constitution states such terms as food stamps, WIC, healthcare, War on Poverty, etc.

It doesn't yet the federal government has spent $22 trillion on a war on poverty since 1965.

Providing for the general welfare covers official poverty, but not a war on drugs that is repugnant to our Commerce Clause.

No it doesn't. I'm not surprised that answer comes from a pothead.

Yes; it does. the general welfare includes the general prosperity. i am surprised we have such lousy morals for free, with Persons of alleged religion carrying that moral weight for us.

General welfare does not mean prosperity.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress a right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[Conservative65]

Show me where the Constitution states such terms as food stamps, WIC, healthcare, War on Poverty, etc.

It doesn't yet the federal government has spent $22 trillion on a war on poverty since 1965.

Providing for the general welfare covers official poverty, but not a war on drugs that is repugnant to our Commerce Clause.

No it doesn't. I'm not surprised that answer comes from a pothead.

Yes; it does. the general welfare includes the general prosperity. i am surprised we have such lousy morals for free, with Persons of alleged religion carrying that moral weight for us.

General welfare does not mean prosperity.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress a right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

In other words, James Madison said one person is not owed a damn thing by another one.

 

[Conservative65]

Article 1, Section 1

I looked at that section. It doesn't use the words "food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc".

both promote and provide are terms used regarding the general welfare in our federal Constitution.

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Then what do you believe the role of government to be? Bigger? Smaller? Somewhere in between? What responsibilities should it have?

From what I've seen in the few years I've been posting in this board, the liberals in particular criticize those who want a smaller government, and that they want the government to interfere in her ability to give birth or have an abortion; whereas, in the process, the liberal unwittingly advocates for government regulation of abortion and abortifacients, which lies in direct conflict with their want for government to "stay out of the bedroom."

No, I don't think liberals want smaller government either.

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government. I said I don't get many people who say they're in favor of smaller govt but clearly aren't.

My view on government would be that a government should make life better for people by doing certain things that are needed that wouldn't happen under pure capitalism.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to **** over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

There is a difference in governments. We have levels of government, but what the federal government is supposed to provide is listed in the US Constitution. Anything outside of that document should be handled by the various other governments such as state, county, city or town, only if they deem necessary and it's what the citizens overwhelmingly want.

Well, it doesn't matter if this is done on one level or several levels. Whether health is done at state level or federal level doesn't always matter much. I'm not just talking federal here.

Well if you're just talking federal, then we have a Constitution that states what the federal government is supposed to oversee. Cash for Clunkers isn't one of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I looked at that section. It doesn't use the words "food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc".

both promote and provide are terms used regarding the general welfare in our federal Constitution.

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't yet the federal government has spent $22 trillion on a war on poverty since 1965.

Providing for the general welfare covers official poverty, but not a war on drugs that is repugnant to our Commerce Clause.

No it doesn't. I'm not surprised that answer comes from a pothead.

Yes; it does. the general welfare includes the general prosperity. i am surprised we have such lousy morals for free, with Persons of alleged religion carrying that moral weight for us.

General welfare does not mean prosperity.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress a right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

In other words, James Madison said one person is not owed a damn thing by another one.

What he said is that our federal government is not a bank. Our federal government is not a social club. Our federal government is our federal government. They should not be in the business to handle personal or business affairs. That's for business and individuals to handle themselves.

In spite of his words, if we look at our expenditures, what are most of them? They are mostly benevolence. Social Security, Medicare, retirement packages for government workers, Medicaid, now Obama Care, unemployment insurance and so on.

All benevolence. Imagine what our federal finances would be if we only adhered to Madison's words.

 

[Conservative65]

both promote and provide are terms used regarding the general welfare in our federal Constitution.

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

 

[Conservative65]

Providing for the general welfare covers official poverty, but not a war on drugs that is repugnant to our Commerce Clause.

No it doesn't. I'm not surprised that answer comes from a pothead.

Yes; it does. the general welfare includes the general prosperity. i am surprised we have such lousy morals for free, with Persons of alleged religion carrying that moral weight for us.

General welfare does not mean prosperity.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress a right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

In other words, James Madison said one person is not owed a damn thing by another one.

What he said is that our federal government is not a bank. Our federal government is not a social club. Our federal government is our federal government. They should not be in the business to handle personal or business affairs. That's for business and individuals to handle themselves.

In spite of his words, if we look at our expenditures, what are most of them? They are mostly benevolence. Social Security, Medicare, retirement packages for government workers, Medicaid, now Obama Care, unemployment insurance and so on.

All benevolence. Imagine what our federal finances would be if we only adhered to Madison's words.

The problem is too many think it's a bank they can draw from and not pay back.

Imagine how much more of the money a person earns they would be able to keep if we did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Still doesn't use those specific words. That being a FACT, your belief that it means that is purely an opinion.

nope; since Both terms are there, you have to prove it doesn't provide or promote the general welfare. A war on poverty can provide for the general welfare while a war on drugs merely and Only provides for the general warfare on drugs-not, the specifically enumerated, common defense.

The War on Poverty is funding the general welfare--not promoting it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Funding the General Welfare.

People like rightwinger seem to think the Constitution means by general welfare that money I earn to provide for my family somehow belongs to another person's family because they aren't getting the job done.

The real problem is that they look at money as the governments money and not the persons.

Money is property and nothing more. Taking money from an individual is no different than taking their car, their boat, their children's playground set in the backyard. It's their property--not governments.

Liberals believe that money earned by people should go into the pot. From the pot, government deals out money to who they feel needs it the most. It matters not whether you put in most of it or none at all. Liberals are the self anointed judge as to who has too little and who has too much as far as they are concerned. If you don't want to put too much in the pot, you are a greedy person because you're only looking out for yourself and not strangers.

Can't tell you how many have said it's the government's money when they TAKE it in taxes.

Liberals are those that want more taken from those they think have too much in order that it be handed to those Liberals think have too little. Phrases like "someone doesn't need that much" or "how many (fill in the blank) does someone need" are common among those particular Liberals.

Or when they say the word subsidies. When you use the word subsidy, what you mean is that government is giving "X" some money. There is no truth to that. Subsidy used by a liberal means government is taking less taxes from them. In the mind of a liberal, those taxes are automatically the governments, so when government doesn't take that money, in a way, government is giving them money instead since it was rightfully governments money in the first place.

It's actually frightening the way liberals think.