Welfare is Unconstitutional

[TNHarley]

Alexander Hamilton who supported an extensive spending clause during the Constitutional Convention said this : language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.

Which is just his opinion on what "general" means. Others had different opinions. Hamilton's is not the be-all, end-all. And if we got rid of welfare, how will red states subsidize their low tax rates?

I posted him specifically because during the constitutional convention, he wanted it to mean an expansive welfare state but it got shot down. That quote was after the signing.

 

[The Derp]

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

Employers use welfare to subsidize their profits. Walmart, for example, costs US taxpayers about $6B a year to provide income-based welfare benefits to its millions of workers. Last year, Walmart's profit was $14B. So we very nearly subsidize half of Walmart's profits by making up for the gap that comes from their shitty wages. So if you really want to move people off welfare, you'd be arguing for wage hikes including the minimum wage.

 

[TNHarley]

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

???? What programs? What are you talking about? Are you saying the because welfare programs exist, people are on welfare? And what about all those red states who use welfare to balance their budgets? Where does that leave them?

No, i meant tax money and the oppression it has caused. Unconstitutional federal laws, war all kinds of shit.I meant that statement as broad as possible.

 

[The Derp]

I posted him specifically because during the constitutional convention, he wanted it to mean an expansive welfare state but it got shot down. That quote was after the signing.

Like I said, they all had different opinions of the function of the state. What they produced was a compromise. One that seems to work just fine. Now, if you were really serious about welfare, you'd be arguing for an increase in the minimum wage, which would move millions off welfare. But that would mean businesses wouldn't make as much money as they did before. So you have a choice to make; do you want to continue subsidizing corporate profits, or do you want to reduce welfare enrollment? Because you can't have both.

 

[dblack]

It sounds like what most of you mean by "general welfare" is the welfare of the majority, right? Even if it diminishes the welfare of the minority?

That's pretty fucked up when you think about it, and can used to justify any number of blatantly immoral laws. The founders were clearly opposed to that kind of unlimited democracy, and it's hard to imagine that would have written such a loophole into the Constitution deliberately.

 

[TNHarley]

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

Employers use welfare to subsidize their profits. Walmart, for example, costs US taxpayers about $6B a year to provide income-based welfare benefits to its millions of workers. Last year, Walmart's profit was $14B. So we very nearly subsidize half of Walmart's profits by making up for the gap that comes from their shitty wages. So if you really want to move people off welfare, you'd be arguing for wage hikes including the minimum wage.

Thats a complete fallacy bro. We arent subsidizing walmart. We are subsidizing their workers. If the workers dont make enough money, get another job or two.
I have had to take up two jobs to feed my family before.
Its their fault. They agree to those wages.

 

[The Derp]

No, i meant tax money and the oppression it has caused. Unconstitutional federal laws, war all kinds of shit.I meant that statement as broad as possible.

Ah...well, I didn't know that.

You're saying taxes are oppression? How have you been personally oppressed by taxes? Come on.

 

[TNHarley]

I posted him specifically because during the constitutional convention, he wanted it to mean an expansive welfare state but it got shot down. That quote was after the signing.

Like I said, they all had different opinions of the function of the state. What they produced was a compromise. One that seems to work just fine. Now, if you were really serious about welfare, you'd be arguing for an increase in the minimum wage, which would move millions off welfare. But that would mean businesses wouldn't make as much money as they did before. So you have a choice to make; do you want to continue subsidizing corporate profits, or do you want to reduce welfare enrollment? Because you can't have both.

increase in minimum wage is unconstitutional, arguably.

 

[TNHarley]

No, i meant tax money and the oppression it has caused. Unconstitutional federal laws, war all kinds of shit.I meant that statement as broad as possible.

Ah...well, I didn't know that.

You're saying taxes are oppression? How have you been personally oppressed by taxes? Come on.

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.
Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

 

[The Derp]

Thats a complete fallacy bro. We arent subsidizing walmart.

What don't you understand? Walmart made $14B in profit. Walmart workers cost taxpayers $6B because they get paid so little, they qualify for those benefits. So if Walmart paid its workers more, the cost to taxpayers will be less and Walmart will still make $8B in profit. So how are we not subsidizing Walmart's profits by giving its workers welfare?

We are subsidizing their workers. If the workers dont make enough money, get another job or two.

That's a ******* stupid idea. So because we spend $6B in welfare for its workers, Walmart gets to make $14B in profits. If we didn't spend that $6B in welfare and Walmart paid their workers more, they'd make $8B in profit. You get that, right? So why do you insist on subsidizing Walmart's shitty wages?

I have had to take up two jobs to feed my family before.

So ******* what? Who cares? Why should I believe you? Why is it that you guys can never make an argument without invoking some kind of personal anecdote no one can verify? Seriously. Get the **** over yourself.

Its their fault. They agree to those wages.

What an idiot.

 

[The Derp]

increase in minimum wage is unconstitutional, arguably.

But that's not what I asked. If you raise wages, you spend less on welfare for people. It's a very simple equation, which may explain why you can't grasp it.

 

[TNHarley]

Thats a complete fallacy bro. We arent subsidizing walmart.

What don't you understand? Walmart made $14B in profit. Walmart workers cost taxpayers $6B because they get paid so little, they qualify for those benefits. So if Walmart paid its workers more, the cost to taxpayers will be less and Walmart will still make $8B in profit. So how are we not subsidizing Walmart's profits by giving its workers welfare?

We are subsidizing their workers. If the workers dont make enough money, get another job or two.

That's a ******* stupid idea. So because we spend $6B in welfare for its workers, Walmart gets to make $14B in profits. If we didn't spend that $6B in welfare and Walmart paid their workers more, they'd make $8B in profit. You get that, right? So why do you insist on subsidizing Walmart's shitty wages?

I have had to take up two jobs to feed my family before.

So ******* what? Who cares? Why should I believe you? Why is it that you guys can never make an argument without invoking some kind of personal anecdote no one can verify? Seriously. Get the **** over yourself.

Its their fault. They agree to those wages.

What an idiot.

Did walmart put a ******* gun to their head? It is absolutely their fault! Whos ******* fault is it they were taking a job not making enough to feed their families? Goddamn dude.. Is it the peoples fault EVER? Of course not, lets blame the company because thats what us LWNJs do.

 

[Timmy]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

It is for the general welfare of We the People not to have sick and starving people in the streets

TANF Is the current welfare law. It was part of the welfare reform law bill Clinton signed back in 1996.

Congress passed the bill. The president signed into law . As the constitution allows .

 

[TNHarley]

I guess since you guys want to rape the concept of general welfare, bailing out companies and giving them free shit is for the good of the people as a whole.
Guess you guys need to STFU about it.

 

[jc456]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

The 20 T debt is a product of two wars, The Great Recession and Tax Cuts. We now have a POTUS who claims the impossible, engages in Brinkmanship with a lunatic both of whom have nuclear weapons. How much blood and treasure do you think is at risk? 20 T will be chump change if adults don't take charge in The District and we take a hit by a nuke in a major US metro area.

Today Trump is meeting on the issue of the opiate crisis - it's past time for Pence and the Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment!

 

[Conservative65]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Looks like you're just talking about welfare for ordinary people so far. What about corporate welfare?

Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.

Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless.

The rich were "too big to not get bailed out", remember.

When the poor constantly demand others do for them, it's easy to see they're unwilling to do for themselves.

 

[TNHarley]

increase in minimum wage is unconstitutional, arguably.

But that's not what I asked. If you raise wages, you spend less on welfare for people. It's a very simple equation, which may explain why you can't grasp it.

if i got serious about an unconstitutional act, i will use another one? LOL @ ur logic

 

[Conservative65]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

It is for the general welfare of We the People not to have sick and starving people in the streets

That's what you say. It is for the general welfare that those unwilling to do for themselves start doing something for themselves instead of expecting others to do it. If you're unwilling to do for yourself, I have no problem is you go without.

 

[Conservative65]

Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

Well then I definitely need to be educated. Please show me where in the Constitution that any authority is given the Supreme Court to strike down any law. Please cite the Article, section, and clause.

Read the ******* thread. You RWnuts do this all the time when you've lost an argument. Demand that people repeat themselves over and over againg.

Read the Constitution. You left wingers constantly claim the Constitution says certain things then refuse to show where it says it. If you can't, just say so. If you're going to use "it was implied", don't bother. That means it doesn't say so, it's what YOU want it to say.

I can show you where Congress has the direct and delegated authority to fund the military. You can't show me where things you say are in the Constitution are. See how that works?

 

[jc456]

increase in minimum wage is unconstitutional, arguably.

But that's not what I asked. If you raise wages, you spend less on welfare for people. It's a very simple equation, which may explain why you can't grasp it.

no that isn't what happens. you need to take a course in economics. see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today. There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.