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

It's a perfectly accurate portrayal of just how ugly Trumpsters can get.
It’s “ugly” for people to express disdain for things that cause decay and degradation in America? Isn’t it uglier for those like yourself and Unkotare to support the things you know for an absolute fact cause decay and degradation to the nation you claim to love?
 
Everything you post is repugnant. I mean, that's why you do it, right?
I’m simply direct, concise and unafraid of that pesky truth / reality that scares the piss out you and Unkotare .
The fact that neither of you can answer the most basic of question tells us all we need to know. You don’t care about the state and future of the union…you care about the feelings of people breaking into our nation against our will.
That’s REPUGNANT
 
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.
General welfare means just that 'general' or what is beneficial to all Americans and not just favored or targeted groups.

The Founders to a man were classical liberals aka 'libertarians' (little "L") meaning they wanted as little government in the lives of the people than what was absolutely necessary for us to exist as a strong, free nation, for unalienable rights to be protected, for the people to be able to govern themselves as much as absolutely possible.

They wrote no constitutional authority whatsoever for the federal government to administer charity because they knew that such would result in more poverty and entitlement. The government should provide what the people cannot provide for themselves in only the most limited and temporary circumstances. The government should take nothing from the people that it does not absolutely have to have and it was immoral to forcibly take what people honorably earned and give it to people who had not earned it.

Almost all Presidents understood and mostly adhered to that principle until FDR. He started the entitlement snowball rolling down hill and it has gathered mass and speed ever since to become the unmanageable and unsustainable monstrosity that we now have.
 
Last edited:
Everything you post is repugnant. I mean, that's why you do it, right?
I get that folks like you are against pointing out flaws in our country! To actually say black on black crime is never discussed on main stream media is racist right? Telling truth's is not allowed in demofk 101, as stated by this demofker

 
The vast majority of Mexican immigrants are here illegally and or on stolen citizenships with illegal lineage.…either way they are present without the peoples consent.
Like all good real Americans with standards and expectations I’m “scared to death” of America becoming a Los Angeles like brown shithole.
If you didn’t hate America you’d feel the same way.
Why can’t you point us to a brown community, city, state or nation that we should want to model America after?
Uruguay. Uruguay is nice.
 
I’m simply direct, concise and unafraid of that pesky truth / reality that scares the piss out you and Unkotare .
The fact that neither of you can answer the most basic of question tells us all we need to know. You don’t care about the state and future of the union…you care about the feelings of people breaking into our nation against our will.
That’s REPUGNANT

If we survived the Irish, we'll survive anything!
 
how are trump supporters reacist [sic] exactly? name something? ...

When did I say Trump supporters were? Don't start making stupid shit up just because you've chosen to hop into bed with a stupid shit.
 
The real problem with the general welfare clause starts when we accept the conceit that it amounts to an implied, general power to spend money. The clause supports and limits the power to tax, not a presumed power to spend. It's a subtle distinction, but it's the exploit liberals have used since the beginning to expand the power of the federal government.
dblack fails to comprehend the power to tax includes the power to spend the tax for the general welfare of the citizens and the country.
 

Forum List

Back
Top