A great advert for Socialism

[danielpalos]

Dear Chuz Life
Here we have danielpalos who believes general welfare inherently includes health care. But says common defense doesn't include warfare.

Can you pls read the past few posts and make the argument that anyone like you should be able to argue general welfare means not aborting babies. So if no laws are needed to specify how this is applied, people like you and danielpalos can just declare that's what it means and you can use govt to impose and make other ppl pay for your programs you call general welfare.

If you had the same authority to make ppl pay for health care by calling it general welfare, can you describe to DP what you would enact to prevent abortion and make all citizens comply and pay for it because it counts as govt promoting the general welfare.

Can you pls spell this out for DP what you would impose and expect taxpayers to follow enforce and pay for through govt? Apparently DP believes general welfare means comprehensive care including health care. So what would you include in general welfare?

I am on a self imposed break from USMB but since you asked. I think you are both full of shit in different ways.

DAN doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and that is evidenced by the way he interprets "promote the general welfare" as "provide for. . . "

YOU don't have a clue about ME personally.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Constitution or Constitutional law.

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.

It is a federal clue and a federalist Cause.

 

[Chuz Life]

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.

It is a federal clue and a federalist Cause.

Do feel free to go ahead and QUOTE the exact language of the Constitution that says the Federal government is to provide welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.

It is a federal clue and a federalist Cause.

Do feel free to go ahead and QUOTE the exact language of the Constitution that says the Federal government is to provide welfare.

You never read Article 1, Section 8? It is in the same sentence as the common defense.

 

[Chuz Life]

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.

It is a federal clue and a federalist Cause.

Do feel free to go ahead and QUOTE the exact language of the Constitution that says the Federal government is to provide welfare.

You never read Article 1, Section 8? It is in the same sentence as the common defense.

Again, QUOTE the exact language of the Constitution that says the Federal government is to provide welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.

It is a federal clue and a federalist Cause.

Do feel free to go ahead and QUOTE the exact language of the Constitution that says the Federal government is to provide welfare.

You never read Article 1, Section 8? It is in the same sentence as the common defense.

Again, QUOTE the exact language of the Constitution that says the Federal government is to provide welfare.

You know I am right even though I am on the left.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

Wait a minute. So they invested in American companies? Through stocks? That's the genius of Norway?

Its largest holdings are in Apple (AAPL), Nestle (NSRGF), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), Novartis(NVS), Microsoft (MSFT) and Alphabet (GOOGL), the owner of Google.

Well shit, we should have thought of that.

American resources are not working for the people, they are working for the few.
I suspect that the US has more resources than Norway can dream of. And they will all enrich the few.

What resources would that be? Are you unable to by Apple or Google stock? You do know you could actually do that without the government taking 50-60% of your income and doing it for you. Is this the best outcome you can hope for is a government so large and so consuming of your money they actually just went to the stock market and purchased stocks in the US free market system to be successful?

The genius of Norway... Take the money from your people and invest in US companies. Why the hell can't you just do that yourself and not have all of the government restrictions such as the one they don't want to pay out until you're well past the age you should have died.

The idea behind big government is that the citizenry is to stupid to be able to take care of themselves.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

You're still pissed because your side lost the Cold War.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Another is Venezuela. And North Korea.

Only a fool would make that comparison.

A bit of logic:

Socialism not = Socialism False
Socialism = Socialism. True

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Chuz Life
Here we have danielpalos who believes general welfare inherently includes health care. But says common defense doesn't include warfare.

Can you pls read the past few posts and make the argument that anyone like you should be able to argue general welfare means not aborting babies. So if no laws are needed to specify how this is applied, people like you and danielpalos can just declare that's what it means and you can use govt to impose and make other ppl pay for your programs you call general welfare.

If you had the same authority to make ppl pay for health care by calling it general welfare, can you describe to DP what you would enact to prevent abortion and make all citizens comply and pay for it because it counts as govt promoting the general welfare.

Can you pls spell this out for DP what you would impose and expect taxpayers to follow enforce and pay for through govt? Apparently DP believes general welfare means comprehensive care including health care. So what would you include in general welfare?

I am on a self imposed break from USMB but since you asked. I think you are both full of shit in different ways.

DAN doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and that is evidenced by the way he interprets "promote the general welfare" as "provide for. . . "

YOU don't have a clue about ME personally.

Thanks Chuz Life
I asked my bf who is prochoice but he agreed that
if liberals want to use "general welfare" to justify what THEY think it
should mean and include, this opens the door for others including
prolife to decide it means protection for unborn children.

Are you okay with asking for this of advocates
for right to health care Chuz Life

Would you be willing to argue for
right to life at the same level that
people like DP say that right to health care
should be the law of the land?

Why not hold this standard
for right to life as well? I asked some other
prolife friends, and my friend Juda is willing
to ask the Democrats and liberals to
recognize Christian beliefs and prolife
if they are so adamant at establishing
LGBT and right to health care beliefs through govt.

Why not enforce that same standard
for people of ALL beliefs equally????

 

[emilynghiem]

Another is Venezuela. And North Korea.

Only a fool would make that comparison.

A bit of logic:

Socialism not = Socialism False
Socialism = Socialism. True

Dear AvgGuyIA Bootney Lee Farnsworth Political Junky
There is LITERAL "socialism" where govt LITERALLY owns
production, businesses property etc.

There is American concepts of "socialism" meaning
that the decision making and budgets are going through federal govt
offices officials and processes including legislatures and courts.

Where a lot of confusion is coming from,
when Socialists talk about govt or public ownership,
they mean PEOPLE to be the govt.

But that's not what's happening.

When you let GOVT run it, it takes it AWAY from the people
and is in the hands of politicians and parties running GOVT.

So both the Conservatives want PEOPLE to have ownership
and the Socialists want the PEOPLE and WORKERS to be in charge
but they call this different things and approach it in opposite ways.

the conservative idea of giving power to the people is
to REMOVE and REDUCE the control that govt has over
budgets and programs/policies and resources ultimately
produced and paid into it by the people.

The liberal idea of protecting the rights and access of the people
is to use GOVT to centralize and establish this.

They both mean to empower PEOPLE
but are using opposite approaches.

For people to mean the govt,
the PEOPLE would have to control policies
programs and resources democratically and locally,
BEFORE we have govt represent that in public policy.

It doesn't work to put govt in charge first
then struggle to make govt represent the people's consent after the fact.

By giving this control to GOVT
that's usually what is meant by "socialism" in AMERICA.

the LITERAL meaning is GOVT owns it,
not the AMERICAN meaning where Govt CONTROLS
through REGULATIONS.

 

[danielpalos]

Another is Venezuela. And North Korea.

Only a fool would make that comparison.

A bit of logic:

Socialism not = Socialism False
Socialism = Socialism. True

The right wing really is, just clueless and Causeless.

Simply having a central bank, means we have a command economy.