nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
I'm playing yank - you certainly don't have to justify anything to ME - your credibility meter is pegged imho.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's not true. And I did say that some people like amputees are not equipped to climb everest and you found one who did - great. But that's not the samething as proving ANYONE can do it.I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it.
You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have
If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.
I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.
I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.
Isn't "In God We Trust" in there somewhere?
Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.
I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.
But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.
Oh and Maggie - I also agree with you in that I think Democrats are being ill served by Nancy Pelosi - but since I'm not a Democrat and since I don't live in her district, I REALLY don't have a dog in THAT fight.
I think she often seems so very mean-spirited and I think that hurts even worse than her far-left convictions.
Oh and Maggie - I also agree with you in that I think Democrats are being ill served by Nancy Pelosi - but since I'm not a Democrat and since I don't live in her district, I REALLY don't have a dog in THAT fight.
I think she often seems so very mean-spirited and I think that hurts even worse than her far-left convictions.
I don't live in her district either, far from it, but I've watched her claw her way to the top, not unlike Tom DeLay, with arm-twisting and subtle I won't support yours (bill) unless you support mine in which case you'll be dead anyway...attitude. She is the epitome of why congress isn't trusted. She was elected by her colleagues to her speakership, but trust me, she didn't win it honestly.
Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.
Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.
One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.
Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.
Immie
The problem is thinking you can eradicate poverty, it will never happen. There is always going to be those people that just don't want to put forth the effort it takes to get an education, get a job and lead productive lives. The only possible way to minimize the numbers of people living in poverty is to try and break the cycle with the newest generation and it has to start in the schools.
Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.
Believe what you want, but statistics show that the kind of slackers you describe are minimal. Most people who receive food stamps (a huge increase in middle-class families now needing them in just the last year) and most families with children using other government programs are indeed needy. Since you've never applied for government assistance, you have no idea the rigmarole a person is put through BEFORE they are approved--even for food stamps. (And in order to further eliminate abuse of those, they are no longer "stamps" that can be traded for cash for cigarettes or booze, but a magnetic card that when swiped cannot be misused for any unauthorized purchase.)
To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.
And btw, I am NOT a "liberal." Nancy Pelosi is a "liberal" and I think she should be sent packing.
In my opinion you are left of center(maybe not as far on the left as Pelosi) and that would make you a liberal in my book. But I digress, and I would like to see your source for the information you provided. Also you say that those in the system truly are in need? Well I beg to differ. When I see people using food stamps (or in some cases magnetic cards but cards, stamps or whatever it's still welfare) then driving away in a better car than most middle income folks can afford it gives me reason to pause. And then when I see help wanted signs in every fast food joint in town, I wonder why are these people on welfare when there is jobs to be had. The logical and resonable answer is these people do not want to work, it is far easier to let the govt. hand them a check or add money to their govt. issued credit card. Explain to me why any person on welfare would continually bear children? No one has yet been able to answer that question, but perhaps you can.
Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.
Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.
One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.
Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.
Immie
You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times. You show me anywhere in the constitution that states the govt. will provide for you when you fall on hard times.
If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.
I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.
Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.
I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.
But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.
You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have when the govt. takes their taxes and gives it to poor people most of which are able bodied Americans. I'm not agains thelping people, I'm against govt. interference and intrusion. Every community can take care of it's own when folks are hit by hard times, it is not the govt.'s. job.
You said an amputee wouldn't be able to climb Mt Everest because of phyical limitations. I proved you wrong and that's that. Get over it already! I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it. Naturally not everyone is determined to climb a silly mountain, me included. You are only limited by your imagination and determination.
That's not true. And I did say that some people like amputees are not equipped to climb everest and you found one who did - great. But that's not the samething as proving ANYONE can do it.I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it.
But if you'd like, we can discard the whole Mt. analogy. Doesn't matter to me.
You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have
What choice do I have when my government declares war and I disagree with that? What happens if they pass any other law that I disagree with?
Nothing.
The majority calls the shots. If you hold a minority opinion that's just the way it goes.
Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey or which programs their tax dollars will go to. (I personally think that would be an interesting way to write the budget - let people indicate on their tax forms just how much of their taxes they want to go to which programs. The people fund what the people WANT to fund. Interesting idea anyway.)
But until then, if you don't want your tax dollars to go to a particular program, then you have to get the votes to kill that program. If you can't get the votes, your money is going to keep funding the program you find objectionable.
A lot of people who find themselves in that minority position, try to blame it on the media, or corruption, or the ignorance of the majority, or some other rationalization. But they are really just making excuses for their own inability to win the issue.
If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.
I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.
I'm asking you to prove it is a legitimate role. Promote does not mean provide.
Look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom
http://preciousonyx.xanga.com/689520854/to-promote-the-general-welfare-not-what-you-think-it-means/
Believe what you want, but statistics show that the kind of slackers you describe are minimal. Most people who receive food stamps (a huge increase in middle-class families now needing them in just the last year) and most families with children using other government programs are indeed needy. Since you've never applied for government assistance, you have no idea the rigmarole a person is put through BEFORE they are approved--even for food stamps. (And in order to further eliminate abuse of those, they are no longer "stamps" that can be traded for cash for cigarettes or booze, but a magnetic card that when swiped cannot be misused for any unauthorized purchase.)
To be raised in slum-like conditions robs people of confidence in the face of the more advantaged on the outside, often just a few streets away. It steals your pride, deadens your ambition, limits your imagination, and psychologically cripples you whenever you step outside the comfort zone of the slum neighborhood. Some DO escape it, but for most, it's a vicious cycle.
And btw, I am NOT a "liberal." Nancy Pelosi is a "liberal" and I think she should be sent packing.
In my opinion you are left of center(maybe not as far on the left as Pelosi) and that would make you a liberal in my book. But I digress, and I would like to see your source for the information you provided. Also you say that those in the system truly are in need? Well I beg to differ. When I see people using food stamps (or in some cases magnetic cards but cards, stamps or whatever it's still welfare) then driving away in a better car than most middle income folks can afford it gives me reason to pause. And then when I see help wanted signs in every fast food joint in town, I wonder why are these people on welfare when there is jobs to be had. The logical and resonable answer is these people do not want to work, it is far easier to let the govt. hand them a check or add money to their govt. issued credit card. Explain to me why any person on welfare would continually bear children? No one has yet been able to answer that question, but perhaps you can.
I've seen random examples like yours many times over the years--the woman using food stamps for potato chips and steaks and driving away in a Caddy. I'm suggesting those are not commonplace situations, but make for great gossip-fests and snickering among people who have never had to worry about where their next meal would come from. It doesn't make for very interesting news coverage talking about all the people out there who DON'T drive away in Escalades after they've paid for their groceries in food stamps, does it...
I could give you examples of what I think is extreme hypocrisy regarding criticism of truly needy people "on the government teet" as it's amusingly called. While watching some silly reality show called "Toddlers & Tiaras" the other night, there were 3 couples (the parents morbidly obese, by the way) who spent thousands of dollars dressing up their babies for fashion shows and spending all their waking hours "training" them for the runway. I had to ask myself which "government teet" was supporting THEM while they indulged in this idiotic fantasy. These were not even lower middle-class people. They were POOR, their homes less than trailer park quality. And they most certainly did not fit the accepted genre of the drug-addicted, fat and black welfare queen dragging 6 younguns around then climbing into an $80,000 vehicle.
Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.It is unreasonable to believe that every citizen of the United States can become a productive member of society? With exceptions of course.
I used the extremes of becoming a billionaire, you used the extreme of climbing Mount Everest both of which can be accomplished through hard work and determination and that has been proven to be a true statement.
But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.
You're missing the concept of: "Where there's a will there's a way." Most use their limitations and obstacles as excuses to hold themselves back. Others keep failing until they succeed. Each person's challenges to achiving their goals is different, some much easier, some hundreds of times harder. Some strive all their lives and never reach their goal but are usually the better for trying, most just float on the current and achive only a casket at the end of their journey.