What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

BrokeLoser

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2016
39,256
21,649
1,915
MEXIFORNIA
If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.
 
If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
 
If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.
Our welfare clause is general because it must be comprehensive enough to provide a general solution for any contingency. FDR proved this is the Case in our federal republic; thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.
 
Our welfare clause is general because it must be comprehensive enough to provide a general solution for any contingency. FDR proved this is the Case in our federal republic; thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.
General does not mean comprehensive in any know form of English usage.

You are making shit up, like you always do.

Commie



.
 
Before Republicans comment on such topics they need to catch up to reality.

Red states are economic basketcases for following failed conservative policies for the last 150 years.

Most of them are horribly polluted and dangerous to raise children in because of the nasty pollution.

Then there’s the lack of education.

In fact it’s so bad in so many red states that in the entire Appalachian area infant mortality rates are rising and life expectancy is falling.

Republican conservatism is not really a failed policy. It’s a disguised policy. The whole point of it is to fuk most Americans and everything they do is aimed at helping needy billionaires.
 
If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.
The general welfare clause must be comprehensive to address any contingency; and, our Founding Fathers indicated we should be proactive.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
General welfare meant the welfare of the states not individual citizens and certainly not foreigners.


To be fair, the Constitution and the Dec of I didn't mention citizenship, IIRC.

In fact, citizenship wasn't even defined until the middle of the 19th Century or so. Until then, it was 'The People' of the United States

Things change. Over the course of 240+ years, dramatically.

The Constitution, especially the Preamble, is nowhere to look for your answer.
 
If the general welfare meant what the left claims it means then there would have been no need to follow it with specific things Congress could do since the statement general welfare would have covered everything.
Such an interpretation gives the federal government unlimited power, and renders meaningless the reserves of power to states.

This is why we cannot let people like Dan run our nation. He wants to give too much power to government and make us all slaves.

He is a commie.
 
Before Republicans comment on such topics they need to catch up to reality.

Red states are economic basketcases for following failed conservative policies for the last 150 years.

Most of them are horribly polluted and dangerous to raise children in because of the nasty pollution.

Then there’s the lack of education.

In fact it’s so bad in so many red states that in the entire Appalachian area infant mortality rates are rising and life expectancy is falling.

Republican conservatism is not really a failed policy. It’s a disguised policy. The whole point of it is to fuk most Americans and everything they do is aimed at helping needy billionaires.

Your theory self destructs quickly though because Mexifornia is home to only 12% of the national population and 33% of the nations welfare filth. In case you didn’t know, Mexifornia is a blue state that operates solely on progressive ideals. Weird huh?
 
Our welfare clause is general because it must be comprehensive enough to provide a general solution for any contingency. FDR proved this is the Case in our federal republic; thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.
General does not mean comprehensive in any know form of English usage.

You are making shit up, like you always do.

Commie



.
i have no need to resort to fallacies, like the other nine hundred and ninety-nine.

i also know how to read, dictionary definitions.

why appeal to ignorance and resort to ad hominems.
 
Before Republicans comment on such topics they need to catch up to reality.

Red states are economic basketcases for following failed conservative policies for the last 150 years.

Most of them are horribly polluted and dangerous to raise children in because of the nasty pollution.

Then there’s the lack of education.

In fact it’s so bad in so many red states that in the entire Appalachian area infant mortality rates are rising and life expectancy is falling.

Republican conservatism is not really a failed policy. It’s a disguised policy. The whole point of it is to fuk most Americans and everything they do is aimed at helping needy billionaires.

Do tell, you mean the Red states are like California?
 
If the general welfare meant what the left claims it means then there would have been no need to follow it with specific things Congress could do since the statement general welfare would have covered everything.
Such an interpretation gives the federal government unlimited power, and renders meaningless the reserves of power to states.

This is why we cannot let people like Dan run our nation. He wants to give too much power to government and make us all slaves.

He is a commie.
we have a general government and a general welfare clause; coincidence or conspiracy?
 
If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b

Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1
 
Before Republicans comment on such topics they need to catch up to reality.

Red states are economic basketcases for following failed conservative policies for the last 150 years.

Most of them are horribly polluted and dangerous to raise children in because of the nasty pollution.

Then there’s the lack of education.

In fact it’s so bad in so many red states that in the entire Appalachian area infant mortality rates are rising and life expectancy is falling.

Republican conservatism is not really a failed policy. It’s a disguised policy. The whole point of it is to fuk most Americans and everything they do is aimed at helping needy billionaires.

Your theory self destructs quickly though because Mexifornia is home to only 12% of the national population and 33% of the nations welfare filth. In case you didn’t know, Mexifornia is a blue state that operates solely on progressive ideals. Weird huh?
a simple cost of living issue that is being addressed through the minimum wage.
 
If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b

Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1
let's simplify our public policies to lower our tax burden.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top