The Government is NOT a Charity

[Hobbit]

September 17 is Constitution Day. On that day, as mandated by legislation introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd, all public schools must have a Constitution education program. What a load of crap. Sen. Byrd, of all people, doesn't want the Constitution to be figured out by anybody, lest his pork barrelling comes screeching to a halt. It was James Madison who stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Hear that Congress? That means no public schooling, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, or foreign aid (except as it relates to defense spending). That is, unless you've somehow managed to pass an ammendment without the knowledge or consent of the states, as you're supposed to. More at townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day

 

[Hagbard Celine]

September 17 is Constitution Day. On that day, as mandated by legislation introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd, all public schools must have a Constitution education program. What a load of crap. Sen. Byrd, of all people, doesn't want the Constitution to be figured out by anybody, lest his pork barrelling comes screeching to a halt. It was James Madison who stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Hear that Congress? That means no public schooling, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, or foreign aid (except as it relates to defense spending). That is, unless you've somehow managed to pass an ammendment without the knowledge or consent of the states, as you're supposed to. More at townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day

The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from keeping a standing army for more than two years. (Section 8, Article 1) Things change Bilbo. Grow a heart, heed your Christian ideals and realize that social programs are good for the well-being of our nation because they take care of the frail, the infirm and the poverty-ridden. Quit being so selfish. WWJD?

 

[Mr. P]

The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from keeping a standing army for more than two years. (Section 8, Article 1) ....

No it doesn't. It says,

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

It doesn't say that they can't fund it for another two years.

 

[CSM]

September 17 is Constitution Day. On that day, as mandated by legislation introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd, all public schools must have a Constitution education program. What a load of crap. Sen. Byrd, of all people, doesn't want the Constitution to be figured out by anybody, lest his pork barrelling comes screeching to a halt. It was James Madison who stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Hear that Congress? That means no public schooling, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, or foreign aid (except as it relates to defense spending). That is, unless you've somehow managed to pass an ammendment without the knowledge or consent of the states, as you're supposed to. More at townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day

A lot of what you cite comes under the "general welfare" clause.

 

[CSM]

No it doesn't. It says,
It doesn't say that they can't fund it for another two years.

Holy crap! I have HC on ignore, but I can see from your quotations that he thinks the Constitution prohibits the US government from keeping a standing Army!!!! What the Constitution states is that no army can be FUNDED for more than two years at a time. That is a HUGE difference.

Congressional review every two years or less is a GOOD thing in my book. It has some subtle implications too, especially in this day and age. Theoretically, the Congress could just NOT FUND the Army and thus stop ongoing operations in Iraq...just like that!

It is also interesting that the Congress is not restricted in their funding of a Navy! Lots of stuff gets hidden under that rug, believe me!

 

[Hobbit]

Holy crap! I have HC on ignore, but I can see from your quotations that he thinks the Constitution prohibits the US government from keeping a standing Army!!!! What the Constitution states is that no army can be FUNDED for more than two years at a time. That is a HUGE difference.

Congressional review every two years or less is a GOOD thing in my book. It has some subtle implications too, especially in this day and age. Theoretically, the Congress could just NOT FUND the Army and thus stop ongoing operations in Iraq...just like that!

It is also interesting that the Congress is not restricted in their funding of a Navy! Lots of stuff gets hidden under that rug, believe me!

Read the article. The Constitution is VERY specific on how the federal government may promote the general welfare. It is not given carte blanche to do so.

 

[CSM]

Read the article. The Constitution is VERY specific on how the federal government may promote the general welfare. It is not given carte blanche to do so.

Understood. That does not keep the politicians and others from twisting, stretching and otherwise distorting the basic document and its intent. Much like the assertion in this thread that the US cannot have a standing Army because of the clauses in the Constitution.

 

[dilloduck]

The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from keeping a standing army for more than two years. (Section 8, Article 1) Things change Bilbo. Grow a heart, heed your Christian ideals and realize that social programs are good for the well-being of our nation because they take care of the frail, the infirm and the poverty-ridden. Quit being so selfish. WWJD?

WWJD ??????:rotflmao:

He would go out and personally help people who need it. He probably WOULDN"T expect the government to do it. BTW--thats just a guess. God forbid that anyone would accuse me of me having any idea what Jesus would REALLY do.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No it doesn't. It says,
It doesn't say that they can't fund it for another two years.

I admit "prohibits" was the wrong word. I think it does imply though that an all-time, standing, federal army is not something the founders forsaw. The Constitution mentions state militias several times, but never a standing, federal army. I think they saw this as something that would have been raised if the Union were under attack from a foriegn or homegrown power.

My point was that we do have a standing army. And we also have social programs. Times have changed since the writing of the Constitution. If we didn't both of those things, our society would be extemely different--and I think worse-off.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

WWJD ??????:rotflmao:

He would go out and personally help people who need it. He probably WOULDN"T expect the government to do it. BTW--thats just a guess. God forbid that anyone would accuse me of me having any idea what Jesus would REALLY do.

Exactly. If we're a "Christian" nation as so many of you and as so many of our Republican leaders claim, why do you fight so hard to get rid of programs that give relief to millions from poverty, illness and ignorance? You argue that you don't want these programs funded with your tax money--so you want to (I won't say greedily) line your own pocket instead of taking care of those weaker and lower than yourself. Seems pretty selfish and un-Jesus-like to me. But what do I know? I'm not in the military.

 

[Hobbit]

Exactly. If we're a "Christian" nation as so many of you and as so many of our Republican leaders claim, why do you fight so hard to get rid of programs that give relief to millions from poverty, illness and ignorance? You argue that you don't want these programs funded with your tax money--so you want to (I won't say greedily) line your own pocket instead of taking care of those weaker and lower than yourself. Seems pretty selfish and un-Jesus-like to me. But what do I know? I'm not in the military.

No, what's selfish is forcing other people to do it for me. If I feel like being generous, there's hundreds of charities that will take my money and give it to people who need it. What government programs do is allow politicians to call themselves generous because they have a very innefficient system of taking other people's money by force and giving it to leeches who know how to work the system.

And, let me once again express my downright outrage at the idea of what the Bible refers to as a 'heathen' daring to berate me for acting against my faith. You know nothing of the nature of God or of the teachings of Jesus, and for the sake of your soul, I hope you wise up. I know what Jesus wants, because I talk to him on a regular basis. Its people like you who twist the words of my Lord and Saviour to try to manipulate people to your own, twisted ends, and I find that to be the highest form of blasphemy. Utter no more of it here.

admit "prohibits" was the wrong word. I think it does imply though that an all-time, standing, federal army is not something the founders forsaw. The Constitution mentions state militias several times, but never a standing, federal army. I think they saw this as something that would have been raised if the Union were under attack from a foriegn or homegrown power.

My point was that we do have a standing army. And we also have social programs. Times have changed since the writing of the Constitution. If we didn't both of those things, our society would be extemely different--and I think worse-off.

There has been a standing army since the formation of the Republic. The system was put in the Constitution as a balance against the President's supreme command of the armed forces. It was to keep monarchist powers out of the hands of the President so that while he is always Commander in Chief, he may only engage in a prolonged conflict with the consent of the Congress.

Social programs, however, have no basis in the Constitution, and were never seen in this country until the New Deal, and even then, they were supposed to be a temporary measure to relieve the downtrodden economy. Truth is that while they may have softened the blow, many economists believe they may have actually prolonged the Depression. It's a waste of MY money and puts an undue burden on the taxpayers that accomplishes nothing besides buying votes for apathetic politicians and creating leeches to suck the lifeblood out of this great nation. If I want to give to charity, I'll go look up the United Way or the Salvation Army, not the IRS.

 

[insein]

Exactly. If we're a "Christian" nation as so many of you and as so many of our Republican leaders claim, why do you fight so hard to get rid of programs that give relief to millions from poverty, illness and ignorance? You argue that you don't want these programs funded with your tax money--so you want to (I won't say greedily) line your own pocket instead of taking care of those weaker and lower than yourself. Seems pretty selfish and un-Jesus-like to me. But what do I know? I'm not in the military.

Hobbit hit the nail on the head. Its not charity if your government FORCES you to pay for these things. The people you speak of give their money to charities and to their churches already. Then on top of that they have money taken from them through taxes to pay for programs that rarely help those in need but rather line the pockets of politicians who promote the scams.

People do help others through charities. Unfortunately i think most charities do poorly because people think "I already pay taxes, im not giving money to that charity too." If people didnt have to pay high taxes for all sorts of useless programs then they would be more inclined to give back to their communities. Whats better is that they would give back to their personal communities instead of sending their money to the Federal Government who sends it God knows where.

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly. If we're a "Christian" nation as so many of you and as so many of our Republican leaders claim, why do you fight so hard to get rid of programs that give relief to millions from poverty, illness and ignorance? You argue that you don't want these programs funded with your tax money--so you want to (I won't say greedily) line your own pocket instead of taking care of those weaker and lower than yourself. Seems pretty selfish and un-Jesus-like to me. But what do I know? I'm not in the military.

He would go out and personally help people who need it.

I didn't say anything about even giving to a charity which at least helps the people who do the real helping. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from helping or giving to whomever you feel deserving. Go do it--it's good for you.

 

[Nuc]

WWJD ??????:rotflmao:

He would go out and personally help people who need it. He probably WOULDN"T expect the government to do it. BTW--thats just a guess. God forbid that anyone would accuse me of me having any idea what Jesus would REALLY do.

Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would do. What music would he listen to for example? Would he listen to rap because it's the music of the downtrodden or would he avoid it because it sucks? Would he eat at McDonald's because that's where his followers eat or would he eat good food instead. This WWJD thing has endless permutations. :wank: :bj2:

 

[archangel]

Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would do. What music would he listen to for example? Would he listen to rap because it's the music of the downtrodden or would he avoid it because it sucks? Would he eat at McDonald's because that's where his followers eat or would he eat good food instead. This WWJD thing has endless permutations. :wank: :bj2:

Naw...Jesus would probably listen to: "Be true to your School" Beach boys...or maybe "You've lost that loving feeling" Righteous Bros"

 

[musicman]

You argue that you don't want these programs funded with your tax money--so you want to (I won't say greedily) line your own pocket instead of taking care of those weaker and lower than yourself.

Line my own pockets with what - my own money??!! My, it's big of you not to say, "greedily". Such is the breathtaking arrogance of the entitlement mentality; its devotees speak of tax breaks as if they were "gifts". How demented can you get?

 

[archangel]

Line my own pockets with what - my own money??!! My, it's big of you not to say, "greedily". Such is the breathtaking arrogance of the entitlement mentality; its devotees speak of tax breaks as if they were "gifts". How demented can you get?

ahhh...c'mon musicman...HC said in another thread he has no use or desire to fight for "Freedom" he just wants the 'bennies' as his professors said he is entitled too!..dont'cha know?

 

[musicman]

ahhh...c'mon musicman...HC said in another thread he has no use or desire to fight for "Freedom" he just wants the 'bennies' as his professors said he is entitled too!..dont'cha know?

Sounds like a lot of our esteemed professors specialize in teaching "Parasite 101".

 

[Annie]

A lot of what you cite comes under the "general welfare" clause.

True, one of the 'loop holes' that were not foreseen. Since the Civil War, the government has been expanding its control over the governed.

I have a measure of hope, with the new law passed, where the citizenry can soon find pork and earmarks leading to such.

 

[dilloduck]

True, one of the 'loop holes' that were not foreseen. Since the Civil War, the government has been expanding its control over the governed.

I have a measure of hope, with the new law passed, where the citizenry can soon find pork and earmarks leading to such.

What do you think the citizenry will do when they find pork and earmarks?