I really don't think someone can comfortably support themselves on about $1k a month. I couldn't pay half my mortgage with that. Assuming they're actually living somewhere that costs money, I find it hard to believe they can properly feed, house and clothe themselves without some assistance. A different argument could be made for someone who has their amenities provided for them by a parent or the like.
Charity work is best left to Charities......because you cant afford to pay half your mortgage.....doesnt mean government should send men with guns to my home and ensure I pay it for you. . . .
No, because I can comfortably pay for my home. I didn't buy out of my grasp. The government's role is the general welfare and that duty encompasses keeping the unfortunate from starving and raising the conscious of Americans.
So do you feel government should force you to pay for those that did? Not at all......... "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." -----James Madison--Father of the Constitution--Hater of Liberals--Great American . . .
It is......unless you believe any and all powers not listed in The Constitution are reserved for an all controlling all powerful centralized Nanny Statist Government. . . .
It isn't. His interpretation and subsequent explanation of the term is not in there. For good reason, as he wasn't alone in having an interpretation on that phrase. All powers not listed are not powers, as they shouldn't be invoked. Simple.
“to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.” that is to say “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” for the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. they are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. in like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. to consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct & independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. ---Thomas Jefferson--Conservative--Founder--Hater of Liberals--Great American So government provison for the poor shouldnt be invoked....... . . .
Once again, one interpretation. One that doesn't even comment on food stamps. I do insist that it is the general welfare, however you choose to interpret it, that allows for common sense to provide the necessities of life. None of the founders were conservatives, all of them were liberals.. so that part of your posts has been rather comical, by the way.
Perhaps you could provide something showing the Founders intending the General Welfare clause as you see it? .....before I proceed with the hundreds of examples that clearly show The Founders oppose everything your contending. Your interpretation is akin to the Liberal interpretation of the General Welfare Clause...... .....Government Can Do Whatever It Wants....... The labels may have changed......the conservative and libertarian principles that founded this country have not. . . .
Their intent is irrelevant, in all reality, as it's difficult to interpret as a whole. Some say the second amendment was meant for the states to bear arms, not the individual, for example. How so? What do you deem as general welfare? How could one's life not be in that? Those principles surely have changed, just look at the American right— the faux conservatives.
Even when the Founders blatantly state their intent? 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. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted. --James Madison--Father of the Constitution--Conservative--Hater of Liberals--Great American "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson--Founder--Conservative--Hater of Liberals--Great American Because its not I The People.....its We The People.....and you cant promote or provide for the General Welfare.....by stealing from one and giving to another. Look a bit further and see Ron and Rand Paul.......The Founders reincarnated..... . . .
1] Some, still. And once again, their intent has limited purpose. None of them were aware of the possibility of an air force, is that unconstitutional? I say not. 2] Taxation and duties are a part of it, as is defending life as it is. 3] I am a Ron Paul supporter. Rand Paul, eh, we'll see.
Why would I? If they want to squander their food stamp benefits and starve later so they can have crab legs today, that's their business. Why are you so petty that you would control what's in their pantry? Seriously, are all conservatives this nosy and invasive?
its unfortunte that americans have to justify things for which they are entitled to, the general population makes people feel like they should not apply to see if they are eligible for government benefits because its a source of shame
The Air Force? Seriously....thats your rebuttle? LoL.... I have shown you FOUNDER after FOUNDER.......state the intent and meaning behind General Welfare........and it seems they disagree with you entirely. If you steal my money to spend on yourself.....thats promoting YOUR WELFARE.....not the General Welfare Well me, The Founders, and Ron share an almost identical view on General Welfare...... .......something to keep in mind as you excercise your bleeding heart. . . .
Well when Im the one footing the bill.......its my business. Are you such a Tyrant.......you would send men with guns to my home, to take food out of my pantry and out of the mouths of my children.......so da Gubmint can give that food to some lazy liberal slob? . . .
So every American is entitled to fruit of another's Labor? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.......todays Democrat Party. . . .
You pay the same amount regardless of what they buy. They get the same entitlement regardless of how they spend it. You pay the exact same amount whether they buy rice and beans or crab legs. Yeah, cry me another one. If you're wealthy enough to be paying taxes, consider yourself fortunate.
100% irrelevant to the point..... ......but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Im betting if everyone paid the same amount.....you wouldnt be seeing Fresh Water Lobster and Porterhouse Steaks on Food Stamp Receipts........or 50 million Americans on Food Stamps for the matter.....or anymore "Free Money Giveaways"....... Stolen in the name of providing essentials........spent in the name of Luxury dining. I feel as fortunate as any host organism could......... . . .
Yet this thread started by what I assume was a mid 20 year old male that didn't want to make hard decisions? Geez, how pathetic is this!
Their interpretation isn't in the actual text. It's still irrelevant. My heart does not bleed. It pumps blood to my brain. Apparently, that might not happen for everyone.
There is little in The Constitution that reveals interpretation or even requires interpretation.......becuase The Founders laid it out in black and white. Sure your heart bleeds......your continuting insistance on Government controlling and "taking care" of everyone makes it pretty apparent. . . .
Being on food stamps is one thing, if someone needs them to supplement their income... fine... Bragging about it is another matter. No offense, but it's not something I'd be bragging about on an on-line forum... I'd be slightly ashamed if nothing else. Where has personal pride gone? Folks bragging about getting government assistance? Yippee! I'm more broke than a 10 year old mule...*sarcasm*
