Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[bigrebnc1775]

“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 subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

 

[Avorysuds]

Oh great, another feminazi.

You're a Rush fan. Who'da thunk it.

I must spread rep.... dammmmmmit!

You got that message too?

 

[hortysir]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Where is that amendment that says they provide US with anything?

You really ARE that dumb, aren't you?
Is that why your name rhymes with "Fail"?

 

[Avorysuds]

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785​

It appears that:

General welfare = The happiness of many individuals.​

Promote General welfare = Correct version = Definition of Promote from dictionary.net


Provide General welfare = Incorrect version = definerovide - Google Search


Are you done yet?

 

[Big Fitz]

"General Welfare" didn't mean the same back then as it does now.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone


GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785


WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785​

It appears that:

General welfare = The happiness of many individuals​

And since government does not create wealth, but only steals it by dint of law which is in essence a form of force, is it then not true, by YOUR logic that they are promoting the general unhappiness, impeding their success and stealing the prosperity of those who actually earn their wealth?

It stands to reason then that this does not promote general happiness in all individuals required by forced to pay for the happiness of a small minority.

:doh: Oops! Pop goes your theory.

 

[shintao]

Asswipe. Social security is not social welfare. You must pay into it to get it.

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.

Welfare is when you get something for nothing which is probably what you are used to doing and hence your outrage that it may stop for you. Sucks to be you donut?

Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment. The only one who sucks is you, so stop tickling my asshole.........

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Asswipe. Social security is not social welfare. You must pay into it to get it.

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.

Welfare is when you get something for nothing which is probably what you are used to doing and hence your outrage that it may stop for you. Sucks to be you donut?

Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment. The only one who sucks is you, so stop tickling my asshole.........

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.

I am sure you can explain how this is done. The only people I know that recieve benifits from social security are children who's parents have died before the child turned 18.

EDITED TO ADD

Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment

No one contributes to unemployeement but the employeer and the government. Workers don't

 

[shintao]

I just love It when people point to the preamble as if it proves anything. The preamble is nothing more then a list of reasons why they were creating the constitution. It is not the rights and laws it creates.

And as I said when they wrote it Welfare did not have the same meaning it has today.

According to the dictionary
.

Are you using a 1700 era dictionary, or yesterdays dictionary that includes the word "Speedo?" Lets take a look at history.

Lees identifies three phases in the operation of the poor laws between 1700 and 1948. In each of these, different policies guided the operation of the system; different segments of the population were targetted for exclusion from assistance; and the social consensus on which the system rested shifted. Lees's first phase, "residualism taken for granted," ran from 1700 to 1834. By residualism she means that the state intervened only in extreme cases of need, giving means-tested assistance. During this period the legitimacy of the poor law system was widely accepted by both givers and receivers. Need was understood broadly to include illness, large family size, low wages, and unemployment for both men and women.

The Solidarities of Strangers: The English Poor Law and the People, 1700-1948 | Canadian Journal of History | Find Articles at BNET

 

[shintao]

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.

I am sure you can explain how this is done. The only people I know that recieve benifits from social security are children who's parents have died before the child turned 18.

Requirements for survivor benefits.

Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment

No one contributes to unemployeement but the employeer and the government. Workers don't

Tax rates are another issue that varies from state to state. While the Federal Unemployment Tax Act sets the minimum tax rate at eight-tenths percent (0.8%), each state is responsible for setting their individual combined tax rate to fund their state unemployment trust fund. The actual tax rate imposed by each state is determined by the needs of each state to provide enough funds in the trust to pay for the benefits claimed.

 

[JWBooth]

And since government does not create wealth, but only steals it by dint of law which is in essence a form of force, is it then not true, by YOUR logic that they are promoting the general unhappiness, impeding their success and stealing the prosperity of those who actually earn their wealth?

It stands to reason then that this does not promote general happiness in all individuals required by forced to pay for the happiness of a small minority.

:doh: Oops! Pop goes your theory.

The state has no money of it's own, it can borrow it, confiscate it, or print fiat currency. All three options serve only to reduce the wealth of productive people.

 

[Charles_Main]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional...

That's not true...Nice try though.

It is completely true. Bad try though.

 

[JWBooth]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional...

That's not true...Nice try though.

So once created no social spending program could ever be ended because it would be unconstitutional? What a load of completely ill informed crap.

 

[Charles_Main]

Asswipe. Social security is not social welfare. You must pay into it to get it.

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.




Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment. The only one who sucks is you, so stop tickling my asshole.........

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.

I am sure you can explain how this is done. The only people I know that recieve benifits from social security are children who's parents have died before the child turned 18.

EDITED TO ADD

Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment

No one contributes to unemployeement but the employeer and the government. Workers don't

Wrong

Understanding The Benefits

Many people think of Social Security as just a retirement program. Although it is true that most of the people receiving Social Security receive retirement benefits, many others get Social Security because they are:

* Disabled; or
* A spouse or child of someone who gets Social Security; or
* A spouse or child of a worker who died; or
* A dependent parent of a worker who died.

and

Where your Social Security tax dollars go

When you work, 85 cents of every Social Security tax dollar you pay goes to a trust fund that pays monthly benefits to current retirees and their families and to surviving spouses and children of workers who have died. The other 15 cents goes to a trust fund that pays benefits to people with disabilities and their families.

15% of Every Dollar it pays out goes to people with disabilities. Many of whom never paid in, or did not may in Nearly as much as they will receive in their Life Time. That my friend is welfare.

Then there is this

How much can family members get?

Each family member may be eligible for a monthly benefit that is up to half of your retirement or disability benefit amount. However, there is a limit to the total amount of money that can be paid to you and your family. The limit varies, but is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your retirement or disability benefit.
If you are divorced

If you are divorced, your ex-spouse may qualify for benefits on your earnings. In some situations, he or she may get benefits even if you are not receiving them. To qualify, a divorced spouse must:

* Have been married to you for at least 10 years;
* Have been divorced at least two years;
* Be at least 62 years old;
* Be unmarried; and
* Not be eligible for an equal or higher benefit based on his or her own work or someone else’s work.

Survivors benefits

When you die, your family may be eligible for benefits based on your work.

Family members who can collect benefits include a widow or widower who is:

* 60 or older; or
* 50 or older and disabled; or
* Any age if he or she is caring for your child who is younger than 16 or disabled and entitled to Social Security benefits on your record.

Your children can receive benefits, too, if they are unmarried and:

* Younger than 18 years old; or
* Between 18 and 19 years old, but in an elementary or secondary school as full-time students; or
* Age 18 or older and severely disabled (the disability must have started before age 22).

Additionally, your parents can receive benefits on your earnings if they were dependent on you for at least half of their support.
Payment after death

If you have enough credits, a one-time payment of $255 also will be made after your death. This benefit may be paid to your spouse or minor children if they meet certain requirements.
If you are divorced

If you are divorced, your ex-spouse may be eligible for survivors benefits based on your earnings when you die. He or she must:

* Be at least age 60 years old (or 50 if disabled) and have been married to you for at least 10 years; or
* Be any age if he or she is caring for a child who
is eligible for benefits based on your earnings; and
* Not be eligible for an equal or higher benefit based on his or her own work; and
* Not be currently married, unless the remarriage occurred after age 60 or after age 50 if disabled.

Benefits paid to an ex-spouse will not affect the benefit rates for other survivors receiving benefits on your earnings record.

NOTE: If you are deceased and your ex-spouse remarries after age 60, he or she may be eligible for Social Security benefits based both on your work and the new spouse’s work, whichever is higher.
How much will your survivors get?

Your survivors receive a percentage of your basic Social Security benefit—usually in a range from 75 to 100 percent each. However, there is a limit to the amount of money that can be paid each month to a family. The limit varies, but is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your benefit rate.

Add to all that that the Government has simply Drained the Trust Fund and in Effect SS is now just part of the General Budget but off the books, and you have A massive welfare program that By ALL accounts is becoming unsustainable as people live much longer, and more and more people qualify for Disability payments.

I actually have a beef with them that I am torn about as well. My mother gets Survivor Benefits From My Father. Even though she walked out on him for another man 35 Years before he died. Simply because she never Re married and he did not either She gets His Benefits, which are slightly more than hers would be. She started getting them at 55.

The concept of SS was intended to be something that is not Welfare, but it has been perverted into one. Which oddly enough is what opposition to it said would happen when it was sold to us by FDR as not a welfare program.

Besides the premise of this Thread is a lie. What most Conservative want to do is to move Programs like this to the state level, and add some level of Privatization to them. That is not the same and getting rid of all welfare, and the title suggests. It is simply looking for an easy to manage, and more Efficient way to do it. By using money from the Trust Fund to cover gaps in the Budget the have broke the compact with the people on SS. It is no longer pay as you go. Moving it to the state level would stop the Federal Government from Stealing for it. Allowing Younger workers to privatize some not all of theirs would be best. A slow transition so we can cover current retirees while moving away from a system that is inefficient and comber sum and abused, to something that can be much more efficient. Even investing very conservatively privately you would be hard pressed to not get a better return and end up with a much richer retirement than what you get from SS for what you pay in. Private accounts for younger workers, that still force them to put money away, but allows them to get a much better return, would be a great thing.

You people on the left get so emotional about it you can not see that.

Then of course we would still need some form of welfare for the Disabled who can not work but I am pretty sure it would be a more efficient sustainable way to go.

 

[shintao]

Add to all that that the Government has simply Drained the Trust Fund and in Effect SS is now just part of the General Budget but off the books, and you have A massive welfare program that By ALL accounts is becoming unsustainable as people live much longer, and more and more people qualify for Disability payments.

Here is really something most people miss. By 18 most people are in the work force and start paying into SS. But along the way they die in wars, accidents, dieseases, and never draw a dime of SS. Lets call that figure 30% by the time 65 years of age rolls along. Where did that money paid in got to? Then we have the extended age to retire, and they make you pay in one year more that you will never see, because you are not going to live one year more. Where does all that money go? Here is chart demonstarting what I am saying about deaths by 65, and how few years the survivors get after that.

Besides the premise of this Thread is a lie. What most Conservative want to do is to move Programs like this to the state level, and add some level of Privatization to them. That is not the same and getting rid of all welfare, and the title suggests. It is simply looking for an easy to manage, and more Efficient way to do it. By using money from the Trust Fund to cover gaps in the Budget the have broke the compact with the people on SS. It is no longer pay as you go. Moving it to the state level would stop the Federal Government from Stealing for it. Allowing Younger workers to privatize some not all of theirs would be best. A slow transition so we can cover current retirees while moving away from a system that is inefficient and comber sum and abused, to something that can be much more efficient. Even investing very conservatively privately you would be hard pressed to not get a better return and end up with a much richer retirement than what you get from SS for what you pay in. Private accounts for younger workers, that still force them to put money away, but allows them to get a much better return, would be a great thing.

You people on the left get so emotional about it you can not see that.

Then of course we would still need some form of welfare for the Disabled who can not work but I am pretty sure it would be a more efficient sustainable way to go.

Well, we could use some old fashion socialism, couldn't we. Just take back your country and end the bullshit.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

With the way how the conservative monkeys are interpreting the Constitution one would get the impression that the Constitution was a document written by conservatives for conservatives only.

 

[California Girl]

With the way how the conservative monkeys are interpreting the Constitution one would get the impression that the Constitution was a document written by conservatives for conservatives only.

And the way the lefties trample over it, one would think we didn't have a Constitution.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

With the way how the conservative monkeys are interpreting the Constitution one would get the impression that the Constitution was a document written by conservatives for conservatives only.

And the way the lefties trample over it, one would think we didn't have a Constitution.

Conservatives have a problem with being consistent, they interpret the Constitution literally when it suits them and then pretend to know what its writers meant on other occasions. The second Amendment is taken literal by the Republican conservatives while general welfare is taken to mean something, make your minds up, either you're going to be literal or not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Turd breath, you do not have to pay into it, to get it.




Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment. The only one who sucks is you, so stop tickling my asshole.........

I am sure you can explain how this is done. The only people I know that recieve benifits from social security are children who's parents have died before the child turned 18.

EDITED TO ADD


No one contributes to unemployeement but the employeer and the government. Workers don't

Wrong

Understanding The Benefits

Charles we are talking about unemployment checks

and

Where your Social Security tax dollars go

When you work, 85 cents of every Social Security tax dollar you pay goes to a trust fund that pays monthly benefits to current retirees and their families and to surviving spouses and children of workers who have died. The other 15 cents goes to a trust fund that pays benefits to people with disabilities and their families.

15% of Every Dollar it pays out goes to people with disabilities. Many of whom never paid in, or did not may in Nearly as much as they will receive in their Life Time. That my friend is welfare.

Then there is this

How much can family members get?

Each family member may be eligible for a monthly benefit that is up to half of your retirement or disability benefit amount. However, there is a limit to the total amount of money that can be paid to you and your family. The limit varies, but is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your retirement or disability benefit.
If you are divorced

If you are divorced, your ex-spouse may qualify for benefits on your earnings. In some situations, he or she may get benefits even if you are not receiving them. To qualify, a divorced spouse must:

* Have been married to you for at least 10 years;
* Have been divorced at least two years;
* Be at least 62 years old;
* Be unmarried; and
* Not be eligible for an equal or higher benefit based on his or her own work or someone else’s work.

Survivors benefits

When you die, your family may be eligible for benefits based on your work.

Family members who can collect benefits include a widow or widower who is:

* 60 or older; or
* 50 or older and disabled; or
* Any age if he or she is caring for your child who is younger than 16 or disabled and entitled to Social Security benefits on your record.

Your children can receive benefits, too, if they are unmarried and:

* Younger than 18 years old; or
* Between 18 and 19 years old, but in an elementary or secondary school as full-time students; or
* Age 18 or older and severely disabled (the disability must have started before age 22).

Additionally, your parents can receive benefits on your earnings if they were dependent on you for at least half of their support.
Payment after death

If you have enough credits, a one-time payment of $255 also will be made after your death. This benefit may be paid to your spouse or minor children if they meet certain requirements.
If you are divorced

If you are divorced, your ex-spouse may be eligible for survivors benefits based on your earnings when you die. He or she must:

* Be at least age 60 years old (or 50 if disabled) and have been married to you for at least 10 years; or
* Be any age if he or she is caring for a child who
is eligible for benefits based on your earnings; and
* Not be eligible for an equal or higher benefit based on his or her own work; and
* Not be currently married, unless the remarriage occurred after age 60 or after age 50 if disabled.

Benefits paid to an ex-spouse will not affect the benefit rates for other survivors receiving benefits on your earnings record.

NOTE: If you are deceased and your ex-spouse remarries after age 60, he or she may be eligible for Social Security benefits based both on your work and the new spouse’s work, whichever is higher.
How much will your survivors get?

Your survivors receive a percentage of your basic Social Security benefit—usually in a range from 75 to 100 percent each. However, there is a limit to the amount of money that can be paid each month to a family. The limit varies, but is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your benefit rate.

Add to all that that the Government has simply Drained the Trust Fund and in Effect SS is now just part of the General Budget but off the books, and you have A massive welfare program that By ALL accounts is becoming unsustainable as people live much longer, and more and more people qualify for Disability payments.

I actually have a beef with them that I am torn about as well. My mother gets Survivor Benefits From My Father. Even though she walked out on him for another man 35 Years before he died. Simply because she never Re married and he did not either She gets His Benefits, which are slightly more than hers would be. She started getting them at 55.

The concept of SS was intended to be something that is not Welfare, but it has been perverted into one. Which oddly enough is what opposition to it said would happen when it was sold to us by FDR as not a welfare program.

Besides the premise of this Thread is a lie. What most Conservative want to do is to move Programs like this to the state level, and add some level of Privatization to them. That is not the same and getting rid of all welfare, and the title suggests. It is simply looking for an easy to manage, and more Efficient way to do it. By using money from the Trust Fund to cover gaps in the Budget the have broke the compact with the people on SS. It is no longer pay as you go. Moving it to the state level would stop the Federal Government from Stealing for it. Allowing Younger workers to privatize some not all of theirs would be best. A slow transition so we can cover current retirees while moving away from a system that is inefficient and comber sum and abused, to something that can be much more efficient. Even investing very conservatively privately you would be hard pressed to not get a better return and end up with a much richer retirement than what you get from SS for what you pay in. Private accounts for younger workers, that still force them to put money away, but allows them to get a much better return, would be a great thing.

You people on the left get so emotional about it you can not see that.

Then of course we would still need some form of welfare for the Disabled who can not work but I am pretty sure it would be a more efficient sustainable way to go.

Turd breath, almost anyone who works pays into welfare, and may end up drawing it, just like unemployment. The only one who sucks is you, so stop tickling my asshole.........

[/QUOTE]

Charles we are talking about unemployment checks

 

[California Girl]

With the way how the conservative monkeys are interpreting the Constitution one would get the impression that the Constitution was a document written by conservatives for conservatives only.

And the way the lefties trample over it, one would think we didn't have a Constitution.

Conservatives have a problem with being consistent, they interpret the Constitution literally when it suits them and then pretend to know what its writers meant on other occasions. The second Amendment is taken literal by the Republican conservatives while general welfare is taken to mean something, make your minds up, either you're going to be literal or not.

Charlie, both sides do that.

And.... again... I can't 'make my mind up' for anyone but me.... and... again... I am NOT a Republican.

 

[shintao]

Conservatives have a problem with being consistent, they interpret the Constitution literally when it suits them and then pretend to know what its writers meant on other occasions. The second Amendment is taken literal by the Republican conservatives while general welfare is taken to mean something, make your minds up, either you're going to be literal or not.

Charlie, both sides do that.

And.... again... I can't 'make my mind up' for anyone but me.... and... again... I am NOT a Republican.

You could use some of that progressive in you grrrl.............. If you believe in the constitution the same way consistently, you cannot go wrong. If you abide by the law of the land based on that Constitution consistently, you cannot go wrong. Can you take the oath to the American Creed.

by William Tyler Page

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

–Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.

If you live by that creed, you would be in my opinion a good American, because you have to sacrifice for America and freedom. It doesn't mean you live by a party affiliation, or a myth or old wives tale. You are truly in or you are out.