Our Obligation.

[Moonglow]

According to Nancy Pelosi, we are supposed to pay people who don't want to work but intend to follow their passions instead.

Sounds ok to me....

There is no reason one can not pursue their passion WHILE doing what needs to be done to earn a living.

If we followed Pelosis idea, in 100 years we will be a nation of very comfortable horrible poets and untalented artists.

It never hindered my abilities when I was kid living under my parents roof....

 

[Jarhead]

According to Nancy Pelosi, we are supposed to pay people who don't want to work but intend to follow their passions instead.

Sounds ok to me....

There is no reason one can not pursue their passion WHILE doing what needs to be done to earn a living.

If we followed Pelosis idea, in 100 years we will be a nation of very comfortable horrible poets and untalented artists.

It never hindered my abilities when I was kid living under my parents roof....

I believe you missed my point.

 

[hortysir]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote =/= Provide

And?

You can initiate programs to promote without outright providing

Name the last time government initiated a program they didn't mandate us to provide for

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote, not provide.

We "provide" a defense for everyone
We "promote" the general welfare of the people by helping those who need help. We do not need to provide for everyone

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote =/= Provide

And?

You can initiate programs to promote without outright providing

Name the last time government initiated a program they didn't mandate us to provide for

No idea what you are talking about

 

[Sonny Clark]

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a fuck up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a fuck-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be fucking ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

And the best way to learn from them and avoid them in the future is to suffer the consequences of those bad choices.

I agree concerning abled bodied adults of sound mind and average IQ's. But, all of that is just common sense. I was speaking of those that can't take care of themselves ONLY. Children, disabled VETS, the elderly, the handicapped, those with mental disorders, those with extremely low IQ's, and others that need help.

 

[Claudette]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote, not provide.

We "provide" a defense for everyone
We "promote" the general welfare of the people by helping those who need help. We do not need to provide for everyone

Nope. The promote doesn't mean that at all. At least not to me.

In general, our Constitution has not been interpreted to encompass positive rights to social or economic provision. No where in the constitution does the word charity occur.

Although there are good arguments that the Constitution is meant to secure the material conditions necessary for full citizenship and equal opportunity. A level field for all to start with. What they do with it is up to them.

 

[Jarhead]

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a fuck up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a fuck-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be fucking ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

And the best way to learn from them and avoid them in the future is to suffer the consequences of those bad choices.

I agree concerning abled bodied adults of sound mind and average IQ's. But, all of that is just common sense. I was speaking of those that can't take care of themselves ONLY. Children, disabled VETS, the elderly, the handicapped, those with mental disorders, those with extremely low IQ's, and others that need help.

Yes....but then the question comes into play..."who are the others that need help", (other than what you cited)....

It seems modern day politicians, primarily democrats, believe "others" should include the poor abled bodied people because they cant get a job without a suit; promiscuous women because they cant afford birth control to support their sexual appetite; able bodied people who live in the inner city because they are geographically disadvantaged;.....

I mean, I can make an argument that it includes pretty much anyone that wants free stuff......

 

[BluesLegend]

My sister and her husband care for his two adult mentally disabled brothers, mentally they are about 8 years old, yet they both work jobs. Naturally I have little sympathy for lazy abled bodied Americans who sit on their ass not working, electing idiots who tell me I'm not paying my fair share and my wealth should be redistributed to the lazy.

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote, not provide.

We "provide" a defense for everyone
We "promote" the general welfare of the people by helping those who need help. We do not need to provide for everyone

Nope. The promote doesn't mean that at all. At least not to me.

In general, our Constitution has not been interpreted to encompass positive rights to social or economic provision. No where in the constitution does the word charity occur.

Although there are good arguments that the Constitution is meant to secure the material conditions necessary for full citizenship and equal opportunity. A level field for all to start with. What they do with it is up to them.

There are alot of words that do not appear in the Constitution. Doesn't mean they don't apply

 

[Claudette]

Doesn't mean they do apply either.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't mean they do apply either.

The word "woman" does not apear in the Constitution

Where does that leave you?

 

[Edgetho]

The Preamble to the Constitution has no meaning in law.

While it has been referenced on occasion, it is only when an Amendment is cited by the SCOTUS for its ruling.

The Preamble is meaningless drivel used to explain the reason for the document and only morons cite it.

Which is almost exclusively libturds

 

[hortysir]

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a fuck up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a fuck-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be fucking ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

And the best way to learn from them and avoid them in the future is to suffer the consequences of those bad choices.

So, punishing innocent children will teach people not to make mistakes?

Bet most of the people who feel this way call themselves "christians".

yawn

 

[Claudette]

Doesn't mean they do apply either.

The word "woman" does not apear in the Constitution

Where does that leave you?

The word idiot doesn't appear there either.

Where does that leave you??

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't mean they do apply either.

The word "woman" does not apear in the Constitution

Where does that leave you?

The word idiot doesn't appear there either.

Where does that leave you??

Three steps ahead of you

 

[Claudette]

Doubt it.

Bleeding hearts aren't three steps ahead of anyone.

They are however the taxpayers worst headache.

They also aren't in the constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

The Preamble to the Constitution has no meaning in law.

While it has been referenced on occasion, it is only when an Amendment is cited by the SCOTUS for its ruling.

The Preamble is meaningless drivel used to explain the reason for the document and only morons cite it.

Which is almost exclusively libturds

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

 

[Disir]

Average observation: Electing self-serving pricks to sort it out with profit driven industry lobbyists seems sadly inefficient.

​

Yes, we the people do have an obligation AND included in that obligation is paying attention to the industry lobbyists and their elected puppets. It becomes more cost effective when we the people do that.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Average observation: Electing self-serving pricks to sort it out with profit driven industry lobbyists seems sadly inefficient.

​

What industry doesn't have lobbyists?

The small ones that are too busy keeping their business afloat to try to figure out how much to pay lawyers who pay for favoritism, I suppose.