Welfare is Unconstitutional

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

No, the general welfare clause has absolutely no stipulation regarding the 'entire Nation'.

So now you concede that federal disaster relief is NOT unconstitutional?

Do you understand what "general" means?
Look up the intent from the constitutional convention. It is hard, i assure you. The people that wanted an expansive welfare state got shot down.

General as in 'the general public'?

If something is done for the good of the general public, must it affect every single person, directly, in a positive way?

 

[TNHarley]

yea, the duopoly tends to that to non conformists.

you post so stupid "the duopoly" ....the duopoly owns your ass ...take a look at this chart chump ...it shows how you are pwned...not by people on welfare as your podunk thesis indicates .,..the duopoly fucked you LOL

David Leonhardt: “The message is straightforward. Only a few decades ago, the middle class and the poor weren’t just receiving healthy raises. Their take-home pay was rising even more rapidly, in percentage terms, than the pay of the rich.”

“In recent decades, by contrast, only very affluent families — those in roughly the top 1/40th of the income distribution — have received such large raises. Yes, the upper-middle class has done better than the middle class or the poor, but the huge gaps are between the super-rich and everyone else.”

yea, the duopoly sucks. Thats why i constantly trash it. Thanks for sounding like a crazy person.

 

[TNHarley]

General doesnt mean individual.

Generally speaking since the Nations population is made up of Individual Americans then obviously they are covered ...you are a moron LOL

ALL Americans would have to be covered dumbass. Could i qualify for welfare? Of course not. More than half the country couldnt qualify.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Im sorry, im just not one to rape the meaning of words for agenda. Or defy intent. Which is there for all who seek it.

Go file a suit genius using your "welfare is Unconstitutional shtick "...see how you are arrested for making people laugh themselves to death

 

[TNHarley]

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

No, the general welfare clause has absolutely no stipulation regarding the 'entire Nation'.

So now you concede that federal disaster relief is NOT unconstitutional?

Do you understand what "general" means?
Look up the intent from the constitutional convention. It is hard, i assure you. The people that wanted an expansive welfare state got shot down.

General as in 'the general public'?

If something is done for the good of the general public, must it affect every single person, directly, in a positive way?

You realize your argument opens up the pandoras box that congress can do ANYTHING that they deem good? Do you know how fucked up that could get? Hell, it already has... Our Constitution has been shit on for generations.
But yes. Thats what general means. I might could agree if it was AT LEAST a majority.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

Hey Alex Jones LOL
you have not quoted the constitution just your opinion ..you are not a Constitutional; scholar in fact you are a Rube an ignorant Podunk Rube ...you have discovered that Welfare is Unconstitutional ? are you freaking kidding me LOL you are a dumb fuck posting in a Right wing suck hole

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.”
General doesnt mean individual. It doesnt mean local. It doesnt mean regional. It means "general"
Its funny you keep mentioning talking points, rubes and partisan "suck holes" but you bring up alex jones LOL
Bless your heart

So any federal law against pollution is unconstitutional unless the pollution affects every single American?

lol, that's retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

No, the general welfare clause has absolutely no stipulation regarding the 'entire Nation'.

So now you concede that federal disaster relief is NOT unconstitutional?

Do you understand what "general" means?
Look up the intent from the constitutional convention. It is hard, i assure you. The people that wanted an expansive welfare state got shot down.

General as in 'the general public'?

If something is done for the good of the general public, must it affect every single person, directly, in a positive way?

You realize your argument opens up the pandoras box that congress can do ANYTHING that they deem good? Do you know how fucked up that could get? Hell, it already has... Our Constitution has been shit on for generations.
But yes. Thats what general means. I might could agree if it was AT LEAST a majority.

Actually Congress can, with the limitation that the Supreme Court can rule their actions unconstitutional, or, the voters can elect someone else.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

Hey Alex Jones LOL
you have not quoted the constitution just your opinion ..you are not a Constitutional; scholar in fact you are a Rube an ignorant Podunk Rube ...you have discovered that Welfare is Unconstitutional ? are you freaking kidding me LOL you are a dumb fuck posting in a Right wing suck hole

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.”
General doesnt mean individual. It doesnt mean local. It doesnt mean regional. It means "general"
Its funny you keep mentioning talking points, rubes and partisan "suck holes" but you bring up alex jones LOL
Bless your heart

So any federal law against pollution is unconstitutional unless the pollution affects every single American?

lol, that's retarded.

I dont know about that analogy. If you make a broad law about pollution, it would effect all the businesses that defy it.
I do, however, believe the EPA is unconstitutional. Needed but Unconstitutional.
I think you are getting carried away with the basic interpretation of the clause. Which is normal, but not correct. They didnt make it broad for a reason..
Basically, if you want to do things that are unconstitutional, you pass an amendment. It really is simple.

 

[Rambunctious]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

 

[Rambunctious]

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

Hey Alex Jones LOL
you have not quoted the constitution just your opinion ..you are not a Constitutional; scholar in fact you are a Rube an ignorant Podunk Rube ...you have discovered that Welfare is Unconstitutional ? are you freaking kidding me LOL you are a dumb fuck posting in a Right wing suck hole

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.”
General doesnt mean individual. It doesnt mean local. It doesnt mean regional. It means "general"
Its funny you keep mentioning talking points, rubes and partisan "suck holes" but you bring up alex jones LOL
Bless your heart

So any federal law against pollution is unconstitutional unless the pollution affects every single American?

lol, that's retarded.

I dont know about that analogy. If you make a broad law about pollution, it would effect all the businesses that defy it.
I do, however, believe the EPA is unconstitutional. Needed but Unconstitutional.
I think you are getting carried away with the basic interpretation of the clause. Which is normal, but not correct. They didnt make it broad for a reason..
Basically, if you want to do things that are unconstitutional, you pass an amendment. It really is simple.

They will never get it TNHarley......

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

Hey Alex Jones LOL
you have not quoted the constitution just your opinion ..you are not a Constitutional; scholar in fact you are a Rube an ignorant Podunk Rube ...you have discovered that Welfare is Unconstitutional ? are you freaking kidding me LOL you are a dumb fuck posting in a Right wing suck hole

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.”
General doesnt mean individual. It doesnt mean local. It doesnt mean regional. It means "general"
Its funny you keep mentioning talking points, rubes and partisan "suck holes" but you bring up alex jones LOL
Bless your heart

So any federal law against pollution is unconstitutional unless the pollution affects every single American?

lol, that's retarded.

I dont know about that analogy. If you make a broad law about pollution, it would effect all the businesses that defy it.
I do, however, believe the EPA is unconstitutional. Needed but Unconstitutional.
I think you are getting carried away with the basic interpretation of the clause. Which is normal, but not correct. They didnt make it broad for a reason..
Basically, if you want to do things that are unconstitutional, you pass an amendment. It really is simple.

They will never get it TNHarley......

I know man..
I mean, i get Americans wanting to do different things. This is the 21st century. But we have a process for it..
I just believe in a rule of law. There must be one for a society to function properly.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

Yes but orange-turd and his Republican enablers thought $700 billion for defense wasn't enough, so they raised it to $750 billion. Even though our closest rival China only spends about $150 billion. The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do. But most of the defense industry is located in red states and their Congressmen thus use taxpayer money to create a defense welfare industry in these states. Let us start there.

The answer from cons is always NO I'M TOO SCARED TO CUT DEFENSE. Get a blanky and go hide then.

 

[TNHarley]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

Yes but orange-turd and his Republican enablers thought $700 billion for defense wasn't enough, so they raised it to $750 billion. Even though our closest rival China only spends about $150 billion. The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do. But most of the defense industry is located in red states and their Congressmen thus use taxpayer money to create a defense welfare industry in these states. Let us start there.

The answer from cons is always NO I'M TOO SCARED TO CUT DEFENSE. Get a blanky and go hide then.

Im ok with cutting defence. However, we also have the top military in the world. That shit isnt free.
The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do
Our military is also bigger than theirs combined. Weird how that works, isnt it?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

Yes but orange-turd and his Republican enablers thought $700 billion for defense wasn't enough, so they raised it to $750 billion. Even though our closest rival China only spends about $150 billion. The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do. But most of the defense industry is located in red states and their Congressmen thus use taxpayer money to create a defense welfare industry in these states. Let us start there.

The answer from cons is always NO I'M TOO SCARED TO CUT DEFENSE. Get a blanky and go hide then.

Im ok with cutting defence. However, we also have the top military in the world. That shit isnt free.
The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do
Our military is also bigger than theirs combined. Weird how that works, isnt it?

Excuses. How surprising.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They will never get it TNHarley......

I certainly will never "get it" I will never be schlonged by Trump ...that is you all s role in Life

 

[TNHarley]

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

Yes but orange-turd and his Republican enablers thought $700 billion for defense wasn't enough, so they raised it to $750 billion. Even though our closest rival China only spends about $150 billion. The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do. But most of the defense industry is located in red states and their Congressmen thus use taxpayer money to create a defense welfare industry in these states. Let us start there.

The answer from cons is always NO I'M TOO SCARED TO CUT DEFENSE. Get a blanky and go hide then.

Im ok with cutting defence. However, we also have the top military in the world. That shit isnt free.
The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do
Our military is also bigger than theirs combined. Weird how that works, isnt it?

Excuses. How surprising.

Its not excuses. I was just showing you we did get something out of it. I think 750B on military is COMPLETE overkill

 

[IsaacNewton]

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

Yes but orange-turd and his Republican enablers thought $700 billion for defense wasn't enough, so they raised it to $750 billion. Even though our closest rival China only spends about $150 billion. The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do. But most of the defense industry is located in red states and their Congressmen thus use taxpayer money to create a defense welfare industry in these states. Let us start there.

The answer from cons is always NO I'M TOO SCARED TO CUT DEFENSE. Get a blanky and go hide then.

Im ok with cutting defence. However, we also have the top military in the world. That shit isnt free.
The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do
Our military is also bigger than theirs combined. Weird how that works, isnt it?

Excuses. How surprising.

Its not excuses. I was just showing you we did get something out of it. I think 750B on military is COMPLETE overkill

And I think cutting social spending by say 10% 'to start with' a year is not unreasonable. But the military budget should be at most $300 billion. This would free up at least $300 billion to pay off the debt and spend some on infrastructure.

 

[TNHarley]

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

Yes but orange-turd and his Republican enablers thought $700 billion for defense wasn't enough, so they raised it to $750 billion. Even though our closest rival China only spends about $150 billion. The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do. But most of the defense industry is located in red states and their Congressmen thus use taxpayer money to create a defense welfare industry in these states. Let us start there.

The answer from cons is always NO I'M TOO SCARED TO CUT DEFENSE. Get a blanky and go hide then.

Im ok with cutting defence. However, we also have the top military in the world. That shit isnt free.
The next 8 largest spenders on defense combined don't spend what we do
Our military is also bigger than theirs combined. Weird how that works, isnt it?

Excuses. How surprising.

Its not excuses. I was just showing you we did get something out of it. I think 750B on military is COMPLETE overkill

And I think cutting social spending by say 10% 'to start with' a year is not unreasonable. But the military budget should be at most $300 billion. This would free up at least $300 billion to pay off the debt and spend some on infrastructure.

unconstitutional spending should cease completely. 300B a year could possibly lower the tax rate AND fix infrastructure.
I seriously question whether we will ever pay down the debt. At least enough to matter.
I bet if we didnt spend trillions on stuff we shouldnt be spending on anyways, we wouldnt have much of a debt.

 

[Avatar4321]

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