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

[rightwinger]

How does incentivizing ShaQuita to make more babies for more welfare help the country as a whole?
How does incentivizing illegals to traverse our border help the country as a whole?
Are you saying Democrats have perverted the shit out of the “general welfare” clause?

no idea who you are ranting about

 

[BrokeLoser]

Data smata .....we dont need no stinkin data!!!!!

Haha…that’s exactly what I thought you’d say. That why us sane folks take you and rightwinger seriously.

 

[BrokeLoser]

no idea who you are ranting about

I play stupid when I have no logical refutation as well. It never really works though.

 

[rightwinger]

I play stupid when I have no logical refutation as well. It never really works though.

maybe if you posted rational thoughts in English it would help

 

[BrokeLoser]

maybe if you posted rational thoughts in English it would help

Okay here, try harder.
“How does incentivizing ShaQuita to make more babies for more welfare help the country as a whole?
How does incentivizing illegals to traverse our border help the country as a whole?
Are you saying Democrats have perverted the shit out of the “general welfare” clause?”

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Ponzi schemes are awesome.

 

[DGS49]

I'm late coming to the table here, but "general welfare" is to be understood as a contrasting concept to "individual welfare." Its most important usage is in Article I, where the powers of Congress are laid out. Congress is given the power to provide for the "general welfare" of the United States.

If you look at those powers, exactly NONE of them provides any INDIVIDUAL benefit to anyone. They provide benefit to the society. Rules of naturalization, creation of the post office, coining money and creating an office for patents and copyrights, creating and maintaining the armed forces, and so on.

But the political Left in this country, and specifically the Leftists in our Congress, have ignored and perverted the meaning of "general welfare," neutered the Tenth Amendment, and created a congressional regime where they are self-empowered to buy the votes of favored sub-communities of Americans by giving them money and tangible & intangible benefits from the public fisc, thus maintaining a heavy presence in both the Congress and the Executive Branch, in spite of the fact that essentially all of their justification for existence is founded in unconstitutional rubbish that compliant courts have refused to quash - as they should have.

Even as I type this, the Chief Executive plots a scheme to "forgive" billions and billions of dollars owed to THE TAXPAYERS by privileged college pukes who legally borrowed those sums in order to enhance their privilege. Hence, if his scheme is carried out the 65% of the population who never went to college will be paying for Government benefits that will accrue to people who will, statistically speaking, have lifetime earnings that are multiples of their own (the majority of student debt is for GRAD SCHOOL).

The Founding Fathers would have a figurative coronary were they brought up to speed on this whole scenario...unconstitutional loans to individual students being written off in a grossly unconstitutional manner by an Executive who is actually powerless to spend a fucking dime of Federal taxpayer money.

General Welfare my ass.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Haha…that’s exactly what I thought you’d say. That why us sane folks take you and rightwinger seriously.

HAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA

You think we take you seriously?


HAHAHAHAHA

 

[task0778]

General welfare appears two times in the Constitution, once in the Preamble and the other in Article I Section 8. The Preamble states, among other things, the Constitution was established to promote the general welfare and in Article I section 8 the first power delegated to Congress is, “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to … provide for the … general welfare of the United States.”

To understand the general welfare clauses, a person must first understand the founding era definition of promote, provide for, general, and welfare. In the lexicon of the founding era and within its constitutional context ‘promote’ meant, “To encourage, advance, or help move forward.” ‘Provide for’ meant, “To make plans, preparations, or arrangements for in advance.” ‘General’ meant, “Common to all; pertaining to the entire nation,” and ‘welfare’ meant, “Happiness; prosperity; well-being.”

Putting these definitions together, the two general welfare clauses meant to encourage and make plans for the happiness, prosperity and well-being of the entire nation, which was supposed to limit the scope of the national government to only spend taxpayer money on things that will be common to all in which all citizens derive an equal benefit, like a common defense. General welfare is also limited by the specific powers delegated to the national government in the Constitution; if it is not expressly written then the national government does not have the authority to do it. Neither the original definition of this clause nor any other constitutionally delegated power gives the national government authority to redistribute income, possessions or anything else to States, special interest groups, or individual citizens.

In response to this logical and legal argument, many people say it is not charitable for a nation that has so much to not provide for the poor and that the plight of the poor in America is too large of a problem for private charity to handle. Advocates of this view do not understand there is nothing charitable about giving someone else’s money away, welfare is out of the government’s jurisdiction, and government sponsored welfare is not effective in helping people in need.

 

[Vegasgiants]

General welfare appears two times in the Constitution, once in the Preamble and the other in Article I Section 8. The Preamble states, among other things, the Constitution was established to promote the general welfare and in Article I section 8 the first power delegated to Congress is, “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to … provide for the … general welfare of the United States.”

To understand the general welfare clauses, a person must first understand the founding era definition of promote, provide for, general, and welfare. In the lexicon of the founding era and within its constitutional context ‘promote’ meant, “To encourage, advance, or help move forward.” ‘Provide for’ meant, “To make plans, preparations, or arrangements for in advance.” ‘General’ meant, “Common to all; pertaining to the entire nation,” and ‘welfare’ meant, “Happiness; prosperity; well-being.”

Putting these definitions together, the two general welfare clauses meant to encourage and make plans for the happiness, prosperity and well-being of the entire nation, which was supposed to limit the scope of the national government to only spend taxpayer money on things that will be common to all in which all citizens derive an equal benefit, like a common defense. General welfare is also limited by the specific powers delegated to the national government in the Constitution; if it is not expressly written then the national government does not have the authority to do it. Neither the original definition of this clause nor any other constitutionally delegated power gives the national government authority to redistribute income, possessions or anything else to States, special interest groups, or individual citizens.

In response to this logical and legal argument, many people say it is not charitable for a nation that has so much to not provide for the poor and that the plight of the poor in America is too large of a problem for private charity to handle. Advocates of this view do not understand there is nothing charitable about giving someone else’s money away, welfare is out of the government’s jurisdiction, and government sponsored welfare is not effective in helping people in need.

It's just that no judge agrees with that interpretation

 

[BrokeLoser]

HAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA

You think we take you seriously?


HAHAHAHAHA

Literally every single one of my opinions and positions are rooted in facts and data… Not a single one is born from FEELZ.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Literally every single one of my opinions and positions are rooted in facts and data… Not a single one is born from FEELZ.

Oh please. You got nothing


Dismissed

 

[Polishprince]

Where does it say that?
Show where in the Constitution

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to create a more perfect union for We the People

I can show you where it says that

How does having an All-Powerful government that does whatever it thinks is in people's interests make the union "more perfect"? That's really no difference between what was done in England, Russia, France or the Ottoman Fucking Empire.

The sultans I'm sure thought they were making their union more perfect too.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Something you'd know nothing about.

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.

You must be the most ignorant, bigoted, ill-informed, prejudiced partisan person here. You live in a total bubble of racist, sexist prejudice and misinformation! NOTHING you say above is even remotely factual.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy

1). ECONOMIC BASKET CASES:

We see that the top 15 state economies bear NO correlation to being "red" or "blue" especially as most states can change color from election to election.​

1. Utah
2. Colorado
3. Idaho
4. Wash
5. Mass
6. Nevada
7. Arizona
8. Florida
9. Texas
10. Ca
11. New Hamp
12. Georgia
13. Virginia
14. Oregon
15. Minnesota

Meantime, as per the site above, we can likewise see that many blue states are poor business opportunities, poor employment and growth.

2). FAILED CONSERVATIVE POLICIES

To the contrary, we are seeing that while nearly ALL of Trump's policies worked his four years, literally ALL of Biden's socialist policies have failed, BADLY.​

3). HORRIBLY POLLUTED.

Oddly enough, Blue Maryland ranks as FIFTH most polluted state! Blue Michigan ranks 7th!​

And Red South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska and Montana all rate among the top most CLEAN states in the USA.​

So once again, not much correlation there to the Derp's claims.​

​

America's 10 Most Polluted States

Much progress has been made to cut pollution, but the list of most polluted states is likely to contain the usual suspects next year and fewer improvements.

www.cnbc.com

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/natural-environment/pollution

4). DANGEROUS TO RAISE CHILDREN IN.

Look at this map:​

​

​

Among the SAFEST STATES are Red Idaho, Wyoming, Iowa, Kentucky and West Virginia, while some of the most dangerous places to live are Blue New Mexico, Colorado, California and Washington. So there is no correlation, it works BOTH ways.​

​

5). EDUCATION:

Here is a map of the states by education ranking:​

​

​

While the northeast generally has the highest budgets and the south some of the lowest, red states like Utah rank high, and blue states like New Mexico rank poorly. So it would app;ear that education is a function of population, industry and state budgets more so than political leanings.​

​

So once again, idiot derps like Dearnd simply show that THEY are among the lowest educated and most pitiable morons on the planet.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Vegasgiants]

Archived: Pro-Democrat group says 9 of the 10 poorest states are Republican | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the slow and stupid if the General welfare meant what you claim then there would have been no reason to LIST the given powers to Congress.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Again for the slow and stupid if the General welfare meant what you claim then there would have been no reason to LIST the given powers to Congress.

My God. It list power s directly for the same reason the bill of rights lists rights directly


This is so basic

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My God. It list power s directly for the same reason the bill of rights lists rights directly


This is so basic

the general welfare is not a power granted to create legislative fiat to further make the point be VERY specific and list for us what welfare programs existed in 1790?

 

[Vegasgiants]

qeonf the general welfare is not a power granted to create legislative fiat to further make the point be VERY specific and list for us what welfare programs existed in 1790?

None I imagine. They also did not a fbi or cia or atf or epa......does congress have the power to fund those agencies?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None I imagine. They also did not a fbi or cia or atf or epa......does congress have the power to fund those agencies?

The CIA yes the FBI No. Nor EPA or ATF,