What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

[danielpalos]

general means comprehensive, in this context. not every Thing can be a "national security issue".

give your definition of comprehensive.

general. a general must be more Comprehensive than a Colonel.

no definition eh?

General must mean Comprehensive in the Context presented.

except you haven't given the definition of comprehensive. why?

something this General: complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

 

[danielpalos]

fallacy of false cause; the right wing never gets it. higher paid labor pays more in local taxes and payroll taxes and create more in demand.

How about letting them keep more of their own money instead.....derp

you don't know what you are talking about; nothing but right wing rhetoric. why not learn economics, instead.

tax cut equals more tax revenue all around fed and local. we showed you!!!

lol. only in right wing fantasy; where is chicken little?

tax cuts are not paying for themselves but being Financed. only the Right Wing, Never gets it.

he is with the climate/ global warming fks.

nothing but right wing fantasy is all they have; not any form of Credibility.

 

[Anathema]

Paine argued for those things and didn't get them. But you miss the point. He clearly felt what he advocated (basic income, government retirement pension) were within constitutional bounds.

That answers the question asked in the topic title.

Paine did not live to see his government pension system, but it did happen. And it is constitutional.

Paine May have advocated for such things but the fact that they were not included in the Constitution proves they are not Constitutional.

Moreover it is completely and totally immoral. That’s why I won’t take a penny from Social Security or Medicare. Even if it means I end up dead.

 

[jc456]

give your definition of comprehensive.

general. a general must be more Comprehensive than a Colonel.

no definition eh?

General must mean Comprehensive in the Context presented.

except you haven't given the definition of comprehensive. why?

something this General: complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

how is general complete? what the fk does that mean. And right complete is comprehensive. so what the fk pig latin fk are you saying?

 

[danielpalos]

it is natural for capitalism to have a rate of unemployment.

No, however; it is natural for any society to have its share of malcontents and layabouts. The chronic unemployed is not a function of capitalism, but of a permissive society.

Yes, it is. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Well, no one takes you seriously, that is a given.

the right wing doesn't. they are full of fallacy.

pig latin 101

too incompetent to ask relevant questions? nobody takes those guys seriously.

 

[jc456]

How about letting them keep more of their own money instead.....derp

you don't know what you are talking about; nothing but right wing rhetoric. why not learn economics, instead.

tax cut equals more tax revenue all around fed and local. we showed you!!!

lol. only in right wing fantasy; where is chicken little?

tax cuts are not paying for themselves but being Financed. only the Right Wing, Never gets it.

he is with the climate/ global warming fks.

nothing but right wing fantasy is all they have; not any form of Credibility.

I like it that the tax cuts came to fruition. That is a fact.

 

[danielpalos]

it is natural for capitalism to have a rate of unemployment.

No, however; it is natural for any society to have its share of malcontents and layabouts. The chronic unemployed is not a function of capitalism, but of a permissive society.

Yes, it is. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Well, no one takes you seriously, that is a given.

the right wing doesn't. they are full of fallacy.

If the founders meant "general welfare" was socialized medicine, then they would have had it from day one.

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

 

[jc456]

No, however; it is natural for any society to have its share of malcontents and layabouts. The chronic unemployed is not a function of capitalism, but of a permissive society.

Yes, it is. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Well, no one takes you seriously, that is a given.

the right wing doesn't. they are full of fallacy.

If the founders meant "general welfare" was socialized medicine, then they would have had it from day one.

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

and back to pig latin. the who's on first scenario.

 

[danielpalos]

you don't know what you are talking about; nothing but right wing rhetoric. why not learn economics, instead.

tax cut equals more tax revenue all around fed and local. we showed you!!!

lol. only in right wing fantasy; where is chicken little?

tax cuts are not paying for themselves but being Financed. only the Right Wing, Never gets it.

he is with the climate/ global warming fks.

nothing but right wing fantasy is all they have; not any form of Credibility.

I like it that the tax cuts came to fruition. That is a fact.

income redistribution; the right wing claims only socialists, do that--http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Well, no one takes you seriously, that is a given.

the right wing doesn't. they are full of fallacy.

If the founders meant "general welfare" was socialized medicine, then they would have had it from day one.

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

and back to pig latin. the who's on first scenario.

special pleading or appealing to ignorance is all the right wing seems to know.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

They also didn't have commies back then. They were lucky.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

special pleading or appealing to ignorance is all the right wing seems to know.

Talking incoherent gibberish is all you seem to know.

 

[danielpalos]

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

They also didn't have commies back then. They were lucky.

they had a less developed understanding of economics, back then.

 

[danielpalos]

special pleading or appealing to ignorance is all the right wing seems to know.

Talking incoherent gibberish is all you seem to know.

nothing but fallacy is even less.

the general welfare must be general enough to also promote the general welfare.

 

[BS Filter]

No, however; it is natural for any society to have its share of malcontents and layabouts. The chronic unemployed is not a function of capitalism, but of a permissive society.

Yes, it is. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Well, no one takes you seriously, that is a given.

the right wing doesn't. they are full of fallacy.

If the founders meant "general welfare" was socialized medicine, then they would have had it from day one.

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

We're not talking about vehicles. You claim "general welfare" means government paid healthcare. It doesn't. The Supreme Court has determined what it means.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

they had a less developed understanding of economics, back then.

You mean a better understanding of government oppression and tyranny?

 

[rightwinger]

It means simply doing what is in the best interest of....We the People

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Well, no one takes you seriously, that is a given.

the right wing doesn't. they are full of fallacy.

If the founders meant "general welfare" was socialized medicine, then they would have had it from day one.

they didn't have electric vehicles back then; any more special pleading?

We're not talking about vehicles. You claim "general welfare" means government paid healthcare. It doesn't. The Supreme Court has determined what it means.

Making sure everyone has access to healthcare in our First World economy is a responsibility of Government; the general welfare clause must be general enough to address that issue in a market friendly manner.

 

[danielpalos]

they had a less developed understanding of economics, back then.

You mean a better understanding of government oppression and tyranny?

all it takes, is capital to make any form of capital difference; why do we have capital problems?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

all it takes, is capital to make any form of capital difference; why do we have capital problems?

People are lazy?


What do you mean by "capital problems?"

Go back to nature. A man who wishes to survive in nature must hunt, gather firewood for warmth, and build a shelter. The man who fails to do so will not survive.

Now put a commie spin on it. The guy who works for his food and builds his own shelter must share with the guy who sat on his ass?

You won't get the point. You believe in communism. You can't be too bright.

.