Welfare is Unconstitutional

[rightwinger]

I rather have my taxes go to a needy family than to a useless costly war.

When the Constitution grants Congress direct authority to do that and an amendment deletes the part about Congress being able to declare war and fund it, you'll get your wish. Until then, I suggest you reach into your pocket and give YOUR money to whomever the hell you choose.

Congress has a Constitutional power to pass legislation

That legislation can be passed to provide for the General Welfare of the people

 

[Timmy]

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?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Not all that much in the scheme of things but ENOUGH.

If you knew the history of how the Air Force came about and an ounce of anything about the Constitution, you'd know the answer. It's simple.

Raising and Maintaining. Your argument that it doesn't foreign bases has everything to do with you not liking it than being unconstitutional. It's the same argument you lefties use when you complain about military spending. The Constitution specifically says Congress can support Armies and maintain the Navy. Not liking how much has nothing to do with whether or not it can happen.

I'm yet to see anything giving Congress the power to force one group of people, the contributors, to support the other group, the freeloaders. If the Constitution said "basic needs", "health", "housing", or the like, I'd agree with you but it doesn't. That means you use something so vague to reach the level you reach, the word fast is more easily defined than it and fast is a subjective term.

See, here's where you game play . On one hand you want the con to specifically say X for it to be constitutional. On the other hand you have no problem stretching the language when it suits you .

I'm not stretching anything. I know the meaning of the words raising and maintaining. Apparently you don't. You're still confusing not liking the decisions of what is directly authorized and whether or not it's authorized.

No one said the specific day to day details has to be listed in the Constitution, just the authority to be able to make those specific details. If something directly gave power to Congress to make laws related to forcing one group to take care of another the specifics on how it was done, whether or not I like it, would be constitutional. You can't provide anything but vagueness in your claim that it does.

Next thing you'll tell me is the Marines aren't constitutional because the word doesn't appear.

You are talking about paying taxes right? I think it's pretty clear that the con allows taxation.

If it makes you feel better, all your taxes go to paying for nuke submarines. Happy now !

 

[Timmy]

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a *****

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

Conservatives don't care

They resent having to help anyone

Until recently, the food stamps and farm subsidies were always part of the same bill.

Lousy mooching farmers !

 

[regent]

What nations do not take care of their citizens that have no food? America did as soon as it was founded and still does. Some nations even take care of their sick and disabled.

 

[rightwinger]

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a *****

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

The poor pay as little as they can get away with and what you support them paying. NOTHING.

Not much there to tax

 

[Conservative65]

The makes and takers concept is really that simple. People try to make it more complicated than it has to be. Imagine that when the government is involved.

No. It's a fairy tale for self-righteous simpletons.

The fairy tale is that someone unwilling to do for themselves has a claim or the right to demand someone be forced to do it for them. When their attitude is that I deserve it although I didn't earn it, **** them.

If you're not making it and you have it handed to you, it's called taking it. Just like there are only two genders, there are only two options here. You can't be both at the same time.

 

[Conservative65]

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a *****

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

Conservatives don't care

They resent having to help anyone

Yet another one that doesn't get it. I don't have a problem helping anyone where I have determined the need. I have a problem when you think it's your place to determine it for me.

It's apparent that people like you resent helping anyone. When you answer to helping is see how much the government can get out of others, that's not you helping.

 

[Conservative65]

I rather have my taxes go to a needy family than to a useless costly war.

When the Constitution grants Congress direct authority to do that and an amendment deletes the part about Congress being able to declare war and fund it, you'll get your wish. Until then, I suggest you reach into your pocket and give YOUR money to whomever the hell you choose.

Congress has a Constitutional power to pass legislation

That legislation can be passed to provide for the General Welfare of the people

To pass legislation based on their delegated powers.

Social welfare is not general welfare. You're not helping people by constantly handing them something they should be earning. You're enabling them to be freeloaders and that helps no one.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Not all that much in the scheme of things but ENOUGH.

If you knew the history of how the Air Force came about and an ounce of anything about the Constitution, you'd know the answer. It's simple.

Raising and Maintaining. Your argument that it doesn't foreign bases has everything to do with you not liking it than being unconstitutional. It's the same argument you lefties use when you complain about military spending. The Constitution specifically says Congress can support Armies and maintain the Navy. Not liking how much has nothing to do with whether or not it can happen.

I'm yet to see anything giving Congress the power to force one group of people, the contributors, to support the other group, the freeloaders. If the Constitution said "basic needs", "health", "housing", or the like, I'd agree with you but it doesn't. That means you use something so vague to reach the level you reach, the word fast is more easily defined than it and fast is a subjective term.

See, here's where you game play . On one hand you want the con to specifically say X for it to be constitutional. On the other hand you have no problem stretching the language when it suits you .

I'm not stretching anything. I know the meaning of the words raising and maintaining. Apparently you don't. You're still confusing not liking the decisions of what is directly authorized and whether or not it's authorized.

No one said the specific day to day details has to be listed in the Constitution, just the authority to be able to make those specific details. If something directly gave power to Congress to make laws related to forcing one group to take care of another the specifics on how it was done, whether or not I like it, would be constitutional. You can't provide anything but vagueness in your claim that it does.

Next thing you'll tell me is the Marines aren't constitutional because the word doesn't appear.

You are talking about paying taxes right? I think it's pretty clear that the con allows taxation.

If it makes you feel better, all your taxes go to paying for nuke submarines. Happy now !

I didn't say anything about taxation. I said what the money was used for. That's what you don't get.

I'm perfectly happy with that. At least it's going to something for which the Constitution allows taxes to go to.

 

[Conservative65]

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a *****

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

The poor pay as little as they can get away with and what you support them paying. NOTHING.

Not much there to tax

More than you think and are willing to acknowledge.

 

[danielpalos]

btw, what are the two sides of the argument on welfare? I hear your side, but just wondering the other side's full argument on why it is constitutional? I've never really paid attention?

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.

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

End the drug war, right wingers.

 

[Timmy]

I rather have my taxes go to a needy family than to a useless costly war.

When the Constitution grants Congress direct authority to do that and an amendment deletes the part about Congress being able to declare war and fund it, you'll get your wish. Until then, I suggest you reach into your pocket and give YOUR money to whomever the hell you choose.

Congress has a Constitutional power to pass legislation

That legislation can be passed to provide for the General Welfare of the people

To pass legislation based on their delegated powers.

Social welfare is not general welfare. You're not helping people by constantly handing them something they should be earning. You're enabling them to be freeloaders and that helps no one.

Sure it's "general welfare". Hell "welfare " is in the con.

I asked earlier . Is the VA constitutional? It's just another version of welfare .

 

[rightwinger]

I rather have my taxes go to a needy family than to a useless costly war.

When the Constitution grants Congress direct authority to do that and an amendment deletes the part about Congress being able to declare war and fund it, you'll get your wish. Until then, I suggest you reach into your pocket and give YOUR money to whomever the hell you choose.

Congress has a Constitutional power to pass legislation

That legislation can be passed to provide for the General Welfare of the people

To pass legislation based on their delegated powers.

Social welfare is not general welfare. You're not helping people by constantly handing them something they should be earning. You're enabling them to be freeloaders and that helps no one.

Of course social welfare can be beneficial to the general welfare of the people
We are as strong as our weakest link

 

[danielpalos]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

lol. end the drug war with your majority in government, right wingers. don't be all political talk and no political action.

I wish they would! That is also unconstitutional

Your One Percenter wants to waste money on an unconstitutional drug war.

 

[rightwinger]

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a *****

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

The poor pay as little as they can get away with and what you support them paying. NOTHING.

Not much there to tax

More than you think and are willing to acknowledge.

Lets look at where the money is

Now, why do you want to increase taxes on those that have only one tenth of a percent of our nations wealth?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Socialism on a national basis must promote the general welfare, not the common Offense or general Warfare.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, general means it must cover every contingency; only the major welfare or the common welfare my be specific.

 

[The Derp]

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.

You and I disagree that someone working a full-time job shouldn't have to get welfare. And Walmart is keeping their wages artificially low by being welfare-dependent. Why pay your workers a living wage if the government is just going to make up that gap anyway? Do you ever hold business accountable for low wages? No.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Did you know; there is absolutely no rational reason, to take the right wing seriously about economics.

Low wages only help the bottom line; better "performance" means bigger bonuses for management.

 

[The Derp]

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.

OK, you talk about giving corporations "free shit", yet you blame workers for their low wages when it's the corporations that keep wages low because the government will pick up the slack so the corporation can make even more money, despite the fact that it's already profitable.