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

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,428
Reaction score
9,442
Points
910
Location
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.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
48,498
Reaction score
10,578
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
29,733
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
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



.
 

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
3,615
Points
290
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.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
 

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
2,639
Points
280
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.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
29,733
Reaction score
14,034
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
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.
 
OP
BrokeLoser

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,428
Reaction score
9,442
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
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?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
 

Thinker101

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
19,309
Reaction score
6,966
Points
360
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?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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?
 

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
17,706
Reaction score
9,075
Points
1,255
Location
The AL part of PA
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
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top