So far we’ve learned that Daniel thinks “general welfare” should mean we can all own Ferrari’s and eat like kings by staying at home and smoking weed while others bust their ass for us.
I say it would fall within constitutional guidelines if we offered welfare seeking lowlifes a taxpayer bought tent, fishing pole and bus ride to a resource rich forest. Prove me wrong please.
No body thinks that 'General Welfare' means everyone gets a Ferrari or anything close. You seem to suffer from paranoid delusions.
At one time people in this country DID basically go out to 'resource rich forests' and make their own way. We had the Homestead act...whereby the government promoted exactly what your saying. However, there really isn't any significant 'resource rich' forests left that hasn't been bought up and few people have the skills needed to survive that way.
While the vast majority of people that collect from government programs would like to become self sufficient...and many even hold full time jobs that do not pay enough for them to survive, there are some lowlifes that have no intention of ever getting off those programs.
So the real solutions are:
1. For business to pay a living wage to all employees - no one that works for a living should have to collect government checks just to survive.
2. For the private sector to provode 100% employment at reasonable wages and with reasonable benefits.
3. For the few that never want to work, the government should provide some meager income - not for their sake, but so the rest of us don't have to live with beggars and thieves. There should be a HUGE difference between the incomes of working people and those that collect government benefits.
But try not to get too upset about 'welfare seeking lowlifes'. There really aren't that many of them and they only get a tiny portion pf the federal budget.
Worry more about government contractors milking taxpayers royally - they not only live off our tax dollars for doing next to nothing, but they live as billionaires off of your hard work.