Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Crixus]

But but but . . . if we don't have welfare programs, snowflakes will fall down dead in the streets.

Hmmm.

 

[TNHarley]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Unfortunately we live in a society that has no clue what enumerated powers are or what they mean. Or federalism. Heck many can't name the vice president

Or they just dont care.

 

[Conservative65]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Notice you don't mention corporate welfare. The great glaring oversight.

It's always the poor that are the problem, not the free money that is shoveled into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Just like Jesus would do eh?

Corporate welfare is corporate investment...Pelosi called welfare people investment... Job creating corporate investment is a good thing.

No it's corporate welfare. Any corporation that is standing on it's own carries it's own capitalization or can get loans to cover business expenses and expansion. Crony capitalism is when Republicans hand out taxpayer money to corporations that can't make it on their own and aren't in an emerging market.

It is welfare for the wealthy, not some fake noble endeavor to 'create jobs'. That is a Stalinistic double-speak phrase that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984.

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

It's not very pragmatic to provide more to someone than they could earn with their sorry skills then think it's an incentive to start doing for yourself. That's what you believe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notice you don't mention corporate welfare. The great glaring oversight.

It's always the poor that are the problem, not the free money that is shoveled into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Just like Jesus would do eh?

Corporate welfare is corporate investment...Pelosi called welfare people investment... Job creating corporate investment is a good thing.

No it's corporate welfare. Any corporation that is standing on it's own carries it's own capitalization or can get loans to cover business expenses and expansion. Crony capitalism is when Republicans hand out taxpayer money to corporations that can't make it on their own and aren't in an emerging market.

It is welfare for the wealthy, not some fake noble endeavor to 'create jobs'. That is a Stalinistic double-speak phrase that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984.

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

It's not very pragmatic to provide more to someone than they could earn with their sorry skills then think it's an incentive to start doing for yourself. That's what you believe.

That's not what I believe, bozo. If you didn't have so much competition from your side of the aisle I would consider you would be the most mentally challenged and incapable of thinking person on this message board. All of your posts seem to be an echo of the same old shit echoed by other biddable fools on the right.

 

[TNHarley]

Corporate welfare is corporate investment...Pelosi called welfare people investment... Job creating corporate investment is a good thing.

No it's corporate welfare. Any corporation that is standing on it's own carries it's own capitalization or can get loans to cover business expenses and expansion. Crony capitalism is when Republicans hand out taxpayer money to corporations that can't make it on their own and aren't in an emerging market.

It is welfare for the wealthy, not some fake noble endeavor to 'create jobs'. That is a Stalinistic double-speak phrase that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984.

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

It's not very pragmatic to provide more to someone than they could earn with their sorry skills then think it's an incentive to start doing for yourself. That's what you believe.

That's not what I believe, bozo. If you didn't have so much competition from your side of the aisle I would consider you would be the most mentally challenged and incapable of thinking person on this message board. All of your posts seem to be an echo of the same old shit echoed by other biddable fools on the right.

yea, because raping the meaning of the word general isnt echoed by the left..

 

[Conservative65]

Corporate welfare is corporate investment...Pelosi called welfare people investment... Job creating corporate investment is a good thing.

No it's corporate welfare. Any corporation that is standing on it's own carries it's own capitalization or can get loans to cover business expenses and expansion. Crony capitalism is when Republicans hand out taxpayer money to corporations that can't make it on their own and aren't in an emerging market.

It is welfare for the wealthy, not some fake noble endeavor to 'create jobs'. That is a Stalinistic double-speak phrase that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984.

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

It's not very pragmatic to provide more to someone than they could earn with their sorry skills then think it's an incentive to start doing for yourself. That's what you believe.

That's not what I believe, bozo. If you didn't have so much competition from your side of the aisle I would consider you would be the most mentally challenged and incapable of thinking person on this message board. All of your posts seem to be an echo of the same old shit echoed by other biddable fools on the right.

If you didn't have so much competition, I'd say you're the biggest Obama NL on the board. You're up there but nowhere near the top, BOY.

 

[TNHarley]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?

[The Congress shall have the 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;]

Explain what the words in the clause mean!

define general welfare

please delete that post. I dont want to hear his dishonesty again :/

 

[Wry Catcher]

No it's corporate welfare. Any corporation that is standing on it's own carries it's own capitalization or can get loans to cover business expenses and expansion. Crony capitalism is when Republicans hand out taxpayer money to corporations that can't make it on their own and aren't in an emerging market.

It is welfare for the wealthy, not some fake noble endeavor to 'create jobs'. That is a Stalinistic double-speak phrase that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984.

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

It's not very pragmatic to provide more to someone than they could earn with their sorry skills then think it's an incentive to start doing for yourself. That's what you believe.

That's not what I believe, bozo. If you didn't have so much competition from your side of the aisle I would consider you would be the most mentally challenged and incapable of thinking person on this message board. All of your posts seem to be an echo of the same old shit echoed by other biddable fools on the right.

If you didn't have so much competition, I'd say you're the biggest Obama NL on the board. You're up there but nowhere near the top, BOY.

What did you mean when you wrote "NL" in association with President Obama?

I bet you believe you're real clever - you're not - and would deny you're a racist.

You're disgusting, and that maybe your best side.

 

[jc456]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

You keep arguing this but you have nothing to back your argument. All you have been doing for weeks now is parroting Trump supporter rhetoric like someone panhandling for reputation points. It's pretty sad. Are you jealous of Tom Horn, Steve McRacist, and others?

Read the constitution dumbfuck. That's all the proof you need. Omg

Calling someone a "dumbfuck" puts you into the same set as bripat and others too dumb to write a rebuttal, sadly you and those who lack the education to write an expository essay on what you've been told to believe, leaves you no other recourse than to call others morons, stupid or dumbfucks.

well you were asked a question to which you never answered. I'd say that qualified you for a dumbfk, Now where in general is an individual mentioned?

 

[jc456]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?

[The Congress shall have the 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;]

Explain what the words in the clause mean!

define general welfare

please delete that post. I dont want to hear his dishonesty again :/

done

 

[Foxfyre]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

The operative word here is 'federal government.' There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to prevent the states and/or local governments from creating and operating whatever welfare, public relief, public assistance, etc. it wants to have.

And I think the Founders would not have objected to the federal government creating and supporting federal insurance programs such as federal earthquake or flood insurance--strictly voluntary and funded by those who choose to buy the protection, and that could also include catastrophic umbrella health insurance policies that take over when private insurance is exhausted, also strictly voluntary and funded by those who choose to buy the protection. Such would be in the spirit of the general welfare by providing coverage most insurance companies would not find profitable to offer. But federal bailouts for those who suffer loss because they didn't buy insurance? Not constitutional.

I also think the Founders would not have objected to the federal government maintaining a service like FEMA who could go into a large catastrophic disaster area to provide quick emergency relief and rescue that would overwhelm or be impractical/impossible for a state government. But once the immediate emergency relief/rescue is provided, roads are cleared, emergency workers have everything up and running, FEMA should back out and let the state and local authorities take over. It should never become another welfare agency as happened during the Bush administration.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

The operative word here is 'federal government.' There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to prevent the states and/or local governments from creating and operating whatever welfare, public relief, public assistance, etc. it wants to have.

And I think the Founders would not have objected to the federal government creating and supporting federal insurance programs such as federal earthquake or flood insurance--strictly voluntary and funded by those who choose to buy the protection, and that could also include catastrophic umbrella health insurance policies that take over when private insurance is exhausted, also strictly voluntary and funded by those who choose to buy the protection. Such would be in the spirit of the general welfare by providing coverage most insurance companies would not find profitable to offer. But federal bailouts for those who suffer loss because they didn't buy insurance? Not constitutional.

I also think the Founders would not have objected to the federal government maintaining a service like FEMA who could go into a large catastrophic disaster area to provide quick emergency relief that would overwhelm or be impractical/impossible for a state government. But once the immediate emergency relief is provided, roads are cleared, emergency workers have everything up and running, FEMA should back out and let the state and local authorities take over. It should never become another welfare agency as happened during the Bush administration.

States are many times in no position financially to overcome a devastating event like Sandy or Katrina. The huge assets of the federal government are the only way to make a large area relatively whole again and all the states benefit from such an arrangement, thus the entire population benefits. Who exactly is advocating clearing roads and restoring power lines then leaving New Orleans to suffer under water for 10 years until they can afford to correct the situation. Cities and states are part of the country as a whole, not the other way around.

 

[Foxfyre]

But but but . . . if we don't have welfare programs, snowflakes will fall down dead in the streets.

You could be providing some powerful reinforcement for the anti-welfare group here. (I'm kidding, I'm kidding for the humor challenged.)

 

[TNHarley]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

The operative word here is 'federal government.' There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to prevent the states and/or local governments from creating and operating whatever welfare, public relief, public assistance, etc. it wants to have.

And I think the Founders would not have objected to the federal government creating and supporting federal insurance programs such as federal earthquake or flood insurance--strictly voluntary and funded by those who choose to buy the protection, and that could also include catastrophic umbrella health insurance policies that take over when private insurance is exhausted, also strictly voluntary and funded by those who choose to buy the protection. Such would be in the spirit of the general welfare by providing coverage most insurance companies would not find profitable to offer. But federal bailouts for those who suffer loss because they didn't buy insurance? Not constitutional.

I also think the Founders would not have objected to the federal government maintaining a service like FEMA who could go into a large catastrophic disaster area to provide quick emergency relief that would overwhelm or be impractical/impossible for a state government. But once the immediate emergency relief is provided, roads are cleared, emergency workers have everything up and running, FEMA should back out and let the state and local authorities take over. It should never become another welfare agency as happened during the Bush administration.

States are many times in no position financially to overcome a devastating event like Sandy or Katrina. The huge assets of the federal government are the only way to make a large area relatively whole again and all the states benefit from such an arrangement, thus the entire population benefits. Who exactly is advocating clearing roads and restoring power lines then leaving New Orleans to suffer under water for 10 years until they can afford to correct the situation. Cities and states are part of the country as a whole, not the other way around.

The entire country benefits from flood relief? Lol ok

 

[Wry Catcher]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?

[The Congress shall have the 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;]

Explain what the words in the clause mean!

define general welfare

please delete that post. I dont want to hear his dishonesty again :/

Denial isn't a rebuttal, and calling my post dishonest is absurd. Unless you think (lol, as if you can) that allowing a pandemic like Ebola to be a problem for each state and not something the Federal Government ought to bother with.

 

[TNHarley]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?

[The Congress shall have the 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;]

Explain what the words in the clause mean!

define general welfare

please delete that post. I dont want to hear his dishonesty again :/

Denial isn't a rebuttal, and calling my post dishonest is absurd. Unless you think (lol, as if you can) that allowing a pandemic like Ebola to be a problem for each state and not something the Federal Government ought to bother with.

Whats dishonest is your raping of words for agenda.
Why do you keep mentioning disease? Are you freaking retarded? The one thing that would be "general" and you use it against me

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

You keep arguing this but you have nothing to back your argument. All you have been doing for weeks now is parroting Trump supporter rhetoric like someone panhandling for reputation points. It's pretty sad. Are you jealous of Tom Horn, Steve McRacist, and others?

Read the constitution dumbfuck. That's all the proof you need. Omg

Calling someone a "dumbfuck" puts you into the same set as bripat and others too dumb to write a rebuttal, sadly you and those who lack the education to write an expository essay on what you've been told to believe, leaves you no other recourse than to call others morons, stupid or dumbfucks.

well you were asked a question to which you never answered. I'd say that qualified you for a dumbfk, Now where in general is an individual mentioned?

Are you a liar, or simply echoing the other liar?

"general, affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread."
Google

"welfare, the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group"
welfare definition - Google Search

 

[LoneLaugher]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Fuck! It's not?? Oh my god!! What have we been thinking??? Let's end it all!!

 

[jc456]

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

You keep arguing this but you have nothing to back your argument. All you have been doing for weeks now is parroting Trump supporter rhetoric like someone panhandling for reputation points. It's pretty sad. Are you jealous of Tom Horn, Steve McRacist, and others?

Read the constitution dumbfuck. That's all the proof you need. Omg

Calling someone a "dumbfuck" puts you into the same set as bripat and others too dumb to write a rebuttal, sadly you and those who lack the education to write an expository essay on what you've been told to believe, leaves you no other recourse than to call others morons, stupid or dumbfucks.

well you were asked a question to which you never answered. I'd say that qualified you for a dumbfk, Now where in general is an individual mentioned?

Are you a liar, or simply echoing the other liar?

"general, affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread."
Google

"welfare, the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group"
welfare definition - Google Search

so I'm still looking for where it states individual. where? still haven't answered that question. still makes you a dumbfk.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many sane, adult and able bodied Americans refuse to work an available job and instead live off of public funds?

How much do these people cost us?

If you cannot answer those two questions, you have no reason to be outraged.