Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[saveliberty]

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.

"Promote" vs "Provide"...

Have you given this ANY Thought?...

Have you considered the possibility that there were well established common law rules of construction in 1788?

Have you Researched the Founders on this?...

Have you researched the founders views on the well established common law rules of construction?

Had the Founders Intended on that Meaning "Welfare" as we Know it today, or Social Security, they would have Proposed them and Passed them into Law.

What's the difference between the meaning of "general welfare" then and now?

Saying the same WRONG thing a million times and it is still wrong. You have been given opportunity after opportunity to understand this subject. Your a hack plain and simple.

 

[Liberty]

Flaylo...it sounds to me like you are advocating slavery. Not racial, but unequality, and slavery nonetheless. Take the topic of healthcare. Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing, and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

Robber barons like those dickheads you want to give taxcuts to are like slavemasters and the shitheads that lobby for them are overseers. You see, the higher class wealthy big businesses need people at the bottom to pay low wages to so they in turn at the top can earn wealth. Those at the top have gotten richer but those at the bottom haven't botten significantly richer. Tax cuts should be for those who earn less or at least the biggest tax cuts should go to the working class and working poor. The business owners and so called job creators are not trickling down enough money from the generous tax cuts the government provides plus the big business owbers are giving jobs to people over seas because its cheaper and it generates more wealth for them, not the country.

Your argument is very flawed. You speak as if the worker you are advocating for is forced into servitude by the companies. They are free to quit at any time.

Also, yes, earning wealth so they can expand their operations and hire more people...which is good right? Would you rather have 10 people work at $20/hr or 20 people work at $10/hr? You are shooting yourself in the foot, and you need to realize this. Corporations are not the only things to work for. Small businesses are in much of the market, as are specific technical fields that are hiring like crazy such as dietitians and nutritionists.

Corporations who have more money, have more reason to expand and create more jobs. Corporations who re taxed to death have no reason to expand, thus there are no jobs.

You are actually destroying your own argument.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Do you view having to register at 18 years of age for selective service as unconstitutional because its required? Dpo you view having to pay a speeding ticket when you drive over speed limit unconstitutional because you have pay something you don't want to pay? Did you view Bush as acting unconstitutional when he continued a war in Iraq that was unjusitified and against the will of the majority of the citizens of the United States? My point dipshit is that there are a lot of thing that we as US citizens are already forced to do whether we like it or not and taxes is one of them so your questio is stupid as fuck, you see where I'm going with this?

Were you in the 82ed?

Yes I was

Cool. I was Airborne myself.

on the trail at Ft. Sill.

I attended an Artillery demonstration at Ft. Sill when in Boy Scouts. My grandfather did artillery school there in 1942.

What does "on the trail" mean?

 

[Liberty]

Had the Founders Intended on that Meaning "Welfare" as we Know it today, or Social Security, they would have Proposed them and Passed them into Law.

If the people had demanded Social Security in 1789, the way they did in 1936, Congress would have established it.

Tell doc brown I said hi. Rollin around the neighborhood in a time machine must be sweet.

Also, you are 100% wrong.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So when will it be too much? Obviously as the population grows, there is more demand by government, not less. By stalling government action, we have fallen behind the civilized World and are headed for third world status. I suppose if you chose to live live like Mexicans or Indians, you can strive for less government, less intrusion. If three acres and a mule are your ideal lifestyle, you might be in the wrong country.

A big strong nation needs a big strong government.

wrong. a strong nation needs a strong industrious hard working PEOPLE.

We need both.

 

[Liberty]

A big strong nation needs a big strong government.

wrong. a strong nation needs a strong industrious hard working PEOPLE.

We need both.

Incorrect. Have faith in people. They don't need a nanny government. It's like youre advocating a 30 year old should still live with their parents. Cut the cord already. Have some responsibility for your own life.

 

[Flaylo]

Were you in the 82ed?

Yes I was

Cool. I was Airborne myself.

on the trail at Ft. Sill.

I attended an Artillery demonstration at Ft. Sill when in Boy Scouts. My grandfather did artillery school there in 1942.

What does "on the trail" mean?

On the trail means drill sergeant duty. I'm trying hard to go back, but I don't think they'll let me.

 

[Liberty]

Flaylo, your heart is in the right place but you are going about it in a counter productive way, and if the end result of what you are advocating ever comes to pass...you will deeply regret it. I promise you.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

A daughter of a friend of mine is attending medical school in Germany.

It's costing her practically nothing to attend.

The Germans apparently understand that SUPPLY and DEMAND play a big part in keeping HC cost down.

We Americans think the solution is to just keep throwning money at the DEMAND side.

And we wonder why the cost of HC continues to climb so much faster than inflation?

Obama's solution was no solution, folks.

Yes it will give many people who do not have HC coverage that coverage.

But in the national aggregate his solution only reinforces the root cause of the problem...demand exceeds supply.

Obama's solution was intended to give poor people a chance to have access to good medical treatment because to many people die and get sick every year because of lack of medical coverage. No one should or have untreated illnesses because of their economic situation and no should get turned away by medical insurance companies who want to make money and keep costs down. That was the real reason for the health care bill, you can't say fuck it to the have nots and let health insurance companies continue to let people die and get sick while making piles of cash, everyone who's against the bil overlooks this.

How about give poor people the tools necessary to succeed in life, earn wealth, break out of poverty.

Access to affordable quality health care is one of the tools necessary to succeed in life.

See what I am saying? GIVING SHIT AWAY just promotes sloth and is what keeps poor people down.

Don't blame the government for the fact that you're a sloth and haven't achieved financial success.

Democrats, and on the other side of the coin, socialist marxists WANT CLASS WARFARE

 

[Liberty]

damn, micky...way to miss the point entirely. You are clearly not interested in intellectual debate and are a hack. Good day, I will not respond to you again.

I'll leave you with a dose of reality though.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0[/ame]

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Democrats, and on the other side of the coin, Socialists

Americans love Socialism, dude.

 

[Liberty]

Democrats, and on the other side of the coin, Socialists

Americans love Socialism, dude.

prove me wrong.

 

[DiamondDave]

Democrats, and on the other side of the coin, Socialists

Americans love Socialism, dude.

Ehhh.. no... The lazy who want something at the expense of others, love socialism

 

[Avatar4321]

Had the Founders Intended on that Meaning "Welfare" as we Know it today, or Social Security, they would have Proposed them and Passed them into Law.

If the people had demanded Social Security in 1789, the way they did in 1936, Congress would have established it.

When exactly did the people demand Social Security?

 

[Avatar4321]

Trickle down economics has never worked and conservatives can provide no examples of a stable and productive economy that worked because of trcikle down economics.

Roaring Twenties, 1950s, 1980s

Of course, you and I may have different definitions of stable.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tyranny is lobbying for thr rich and saying fuck the poor, aren't you conservatives supposed to bearers of the Bible? What about caring for the poor?

I do care for the poor. That's why I oppose enslaving them to a big government.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unfortunately for you, we don't all live in a fantasy world where death and illness stop simply because the government passes a bill.

And we don't live in a fantasy world where everyone that goes to college and or works hard is assured of having a decent job and huge amounts of money and wealth.

That's because nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. You do what you need to do to survive and thrive.

If you lose a job, you get another one. If you need to move to do that. You move. If you need to gain new skills you gain new skills. You work hard, be industrious, and thrifty and you will survive and thrive.

We live in reality where health care, as with any other service, suffers when the government interfers with it. Instead of fixing the problems they cause more people to die.

Is it the fault of government when health insurance companies refuse to pay the hospital bills of those they're supposed to insure or is it a case of the health insurance lacking personal responsiblity for their greed? Who else is supposed to stand up for these people, the state governments? And have state governments done? The government is not causing more people to die, thats partisan horseshit that you can't prove.

Can you name an insurance company that won't pay a bill they are responsible for? There are remedies. We have courts for a reason.

If you enter into a contract with someone, they are only responsible for the areas you have contracted for.

People are supposed to stand up for themselves. If they can't do that their families are supposed to stand up for them. If they can't there are private charities. There are people who donate their time and money to treating the poor and needy who can't support themselves.

The key is individual action. Because individual action is what is necessary.

Every government health care system in the world has to ration care. It does not work and the first people to be killed off are always the elderly or those who need serious care.

I don't hate rich people, thats a fucking lie, I just hate those dipshits who think they must be better than others less fortunate than them just because they have more money and blame the poor for being the problem.

And you've decided that all this "dip*&^*s" are people who are "rich".

You are very generous with other peoples time and money. But life will be much more rewarding if you are generous with your own.

 

[Big Fitz]

I just had an epiphany.

In all the chaff and flares being kicked off to try and say that the founding fathers meant for the government nanny state and IS constitutional, I hit upon a small twist of the language that makes a big difference.

"Provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare and Establish justice and liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

Look at the first section: "Provide for the Common Defense". What does that mean? To provide means that they will be the source of defense of the Common populace It is a duty of government to defend us against threats foreign and domestic. Pretty clear I would say.

Now the second step. "PROMOTE the General Welfare". Look at that! The word Promote! Does it mean it will be the source of General Welfare? No. Does it guarantee a standard of living? No. Does it give permission for the government to supply the general welfare? No.

What does the word Promote mean? It means to ENCOURAGE OTHERS to IMPROVEMENT. To ALLOW the citizenry to succeed on their own. To do what is best for the welfare of the citizens but not being it's source, just an enabler of your own efforts.

So if the founding fathers and documents meant to have people dependent on the national government, why did they not write "Provide for the common defense and General Welfare"? Why did they change to Promote?

Because the intent was to never become subjects of a government again, but rather to have government subject to the citizens. Communism doesn't have citizens. It has subjects. Those who exist at the will and desire of the state serving the state. This is contrary to everything our founding fathers envisioned. Doing things only government can do like protect against those who wish to take our freedom and liberty away...

... for ourselves and our posterity.

This was an everlasting pledge to the nation.

Edit::::: Apparently I'm not the only one to have this epiphany today.

 

[johnrocks]

Check out the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll.

70% favor the the provision in the health care law requiring all new health plans to provide their customers access to basic preventive health care services, such as screenings and immunizations, without charging the customer any co‐payment.

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll -- August 2010
The August Health Tracking Poll finds that support for health reform fell over the course of August, dipping from a 50 percent favorability rating in July to 43 percent, while 45 percent of the public reported unfavorable views. The dip in favorability returned public opinion on the new law to the even split last seen in May before a modest uptick in support in June and July.

Americans’ views of how reform will affect them personally have changed little over the summer, with 29 percent saying in August that they and their family will be better off under the law, 30 percent saying they expect to be worse off and 36 percent saying it won’t make much difference. But the gap between those who think the new law will make the country better off and those who think it will make it worse off narrowed over the last month, with 39 percent saying the law will benefit the nation and 37 percent expressing the opposite view.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll -- August 2010 - Kaiser Family Foundation

Does not look like a ringing endorsement to me and this is the source you provided, which Kaiser is well respected.

Check out question 14 about whether "specific elements of the health reform law that are scheduled to be implemented within the next year" are viewed with favor.

Also, check out question 16 about whether "elements of the health reform law that are scheduled to be implemented further in the future" are viewed with favor.

Gotcha, so 70% support getting "free" services and demanding that insurance companies can't charge.

 

[Big Fitz]

Democrats, and on the other side of the coin, Socialists

Americans love Socialism, dude.

Fucking lie. If they did, Obama would have approval numbers in the 90% rate.