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

[ThisIsMe]

Afraid you belong to a society and are obligated to contribute

Fine, as long as my contribution is used for common issues, not to be your daddy and pay your way.

The only difference between theft and welfare taxation is that government is the middle man.

your money is being Wasted on the general warfare not the general welfare. stop whining.

Our military budget is 46 cents out of every dollar on earth

It comes at a price, less money to spend on education, healthcare, modern infrastructure, public welfare

When things like public welfare, healthcare, and all the other things you lefties think the government should fund get a mention in the Constitution, they can have 46 cent on the dollar spent on them.

The founders never mention what can be provided under General Welfare

They left it up to We the People to decide

No, if you read the federalist papers, you can see the intent of the general welfare clause. The framers said that the enumerated powers defined the general welfare clause, because if general welfare was all encompassing, there would have been no need for enumerated powers.

 

[ThisIsMe]

When things like public welfare, healthcare, and all the other things you lefties think the government should fund get a mention in the Constitution, they can have 46 cent on the dollar spent on them.

The founders never mention what can be provided under General Welfare

They left it up to We the People to decide

I agree, the people decide. The problem is when the people decide, then a small faction use other means to get what they want to shove down the throats of the majority. Every state that voted on same-sex marriage voted against it.

You don’t get to vote on what rights other people get to have

Marriage isn't a right.

Equal protection of our laws is

So if a person says that public displays of affection between gay couples offends them, do those people have equal protection under the law to stop gay couples from showing affection in public?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The "general welfare" clause was meant as a limitation on the taxation power. Even Hamilton made this point, before he hooked up with the banksters.

The Founders were revolting against the King of England, widely accused of taxing the colonies for his own welfare, and not that of the people he ruled. They wanted to make sure that future leaders of the US weren't allowed to tax us just to fatten up the state coffers.

Promote the General Welfare has nothing to do with taxation
It is HOW we use that revenue

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

Actually, it's the first time I've said that, and yes, when you take money from one group of people to distribute that to another group of specific people, you are in effect, taking from one person and giving it to another.

Now, taking money from one group of people and using it to help better the entire nation is a different thing altogether.

Again, keep the government out of my pockets, and my charitable giving will increase.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Letting people keep their own money isn't giving them anything. It's sad when someone believes their own party propagqanda

To commie leftists, all earnings belong to the government. They just let us keep some, out of benevolence.

The government is We the People

Those who benefit the most from society have an obligation to support it

Who is benefiting from society? If apple creates a phone, and you pay $800 for that phone, that is your choice. They benefit from the sale, and you benefit from a new phone. The apple CEO makes a hefty salary for running that company, and he provides a service to that company for which they pay him. He benefits from apple and apple benefits from him, and society benefits from their products.

Who says apple, or the CEO owes anyone beyond that transaction? People choose to buy goods and services, nobody is forcing you to buy anything. It's not like people are just giving apple (or any company) money for nothing.

Are you saying Apple has no obligation to pay taxes

No, that is not what I am saying, and that is not what you were saying either. You said people who benefit from society are obligated to help others, and I said that their obligation ends at the conclusion of a sale.

Yes, they should pay taxes, but they should not be obligated to have the government overreaching into their pockets. They should only be obligated to pay the legal amount of taxes, and no more. However, most major corporations do give generously to community programs and other charitable entities.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Haha... danielpalos and rightwinger
“Give us free shit!”
“We need free shit!”
“You owe us free shit!”
“OH....and give our illegal Mexican buddies free shit too!”

Better to give free shit to the wealthy
They will take care of us

Letting people keep their own money isn't giving them anything. It's sad when someone believes their own party propagqanda.

Relieving them of the responsibility to contribute to the society that provides them so much

I promise you, the wealthy give billions each year in charitable donations, and community investment.

People have jobs because of wealthy people, people have community centers because of wealthy people, people have parks, schools, museums, stadiums, made possible by grants from wealthy people.

The wealthy make a profit off of every person they employ.

And every employee has a job because of a wealthy person.

 

[BS Filter]

I have. Nothing in there about marriage. Tell us what the reason was for the 14th amendment.

Read equal protection under the law

You didn't answer my question. You brought up the 14th amendment as a basis for same-sex marriage. What was the reason for the 14th amendment?

Sorry Skippy

I don’t take homework assignments
If you have a point to make...it’s up to you

You're a dishonest person. Everyone can plainly see you won't answer the question because you know as well as I do what the purpose of the 14th amendment was. People like you should never be given any kind of power in my country and need to be exposed for the frauds and haters of the Constitution that you are.

You answer the question

Go to hell.

 

[BS Filter]

Haha... danielpalos and rightwinger
“Give us free shit!”
“We need free shit!”
“You owe us free shit!”
“OH....and give our illegal Mexican buddies free shit too!”

Better to give free shit to the wealthy
They will take care of us

Letting people keep their own money isn't giving them anything. It's sad when someone believes their own party propagqanda.

Relieving them of the responsibility to contribute to the society that provides them so much

I promise you, the wealthy give billions each year in charitable donations, and community investment.

People have jobs because of wealthy people, people have community centers because of wealthy people, people have parks, schools, museums, stadiums, made possible by grants from wealthy people.

The wealthy make a profit off of every person they employ.

Do you have a job?

 

[Conservative65]

Fine, as long as my contribution is used for common issues, not to be your daddy and pay your way.

The only difference between theft and welfare taxation is that government is the middle man.

your money is being Wasted on the general warfare not the general welfare. stop whining.

Our military budget is 46 cents out of every dollar on earth

It comes at a price, less money to spend on education, healthcare, modern infrastructure, public welfare

When things like public welfare, healthcare, and all the other things you lefties think the government should fund get a mention in the Constitution, they can have 46 cent on the dollar spent on them.

The founders never mention what can be provided under General Welfare

They left it up to We the People to decide

No, if you read the federalist papers, you can see the intent of the general welfare clause. The framers said that the enumerated powers defined the general welfare clause, because if general welfare was all encompassing, there would have been no need for enumerated powers.

The founding fathers also provided a means by which the Constitution could be amended if something needed to be added to the list of delegated powers.

 

[Conservative65]

The founders never mention what can be provided under General Welfare

They left it up to We the People to decide

I agree, the people decide. The problem is when the people decide, then a small faction use other means to get what they want to shove down the throats of the majority. Every state that voted on same-sex marriage voted against it.

You don’t get to vote on what rights other people get to have

Marriage isn't a right.

Equal protection of our laws is

So if a person says that public displays of affection between gay couples offends them, do those people have equal protection under the law to stop gay couples from showing affection in public?

To those on the left, they support democracy when it comes to having things done they support. When they oppose it being done, they consider the same method as mob rule by the right.

 

[rightwinger]

Let’s look at “General Welfare”

Building a dam to provide electrical power to a sector of the country
Maintaining ports, waterways, roads, bridges
Protecting from flooding
Disaster relief
Helping the poor

Guess which one conservatives consider an assault on the Constituion

Yep, because all the others are defined by the constitution, helping the poor is not.

General welfare means providing general welfare to the country. This is secure borders, public roadways, post offices, a military, things that provide a general well being for the entire country.

Again, I think we should all help the poor, but I don't think the government should take money out of someone's pocket in order to do so.

Let's put it like this, when I have cash in my wallet, and I see homeless people on the road, I don't mind stopping and giving them money. If the government would stop taking so much of my paycheck, I would be inclined to give even more to help people, willingly, voluntarily. The government, however, takes so much of my check that it doesn't leave as much for giving.

If the government would cut back on a lot of other spending, and lowered taxes, you would probably see charitable giving increase.

The Constitution never said anything about providing electrical power to remote areas. The government did it because it is in the General Welfare of the people.
Charitable giving is not a replacement of Government assistance. Charities are localized and live and die by the economy. They are also more open to corruption than the Government

 

[rightwinger]

I agree, the people decide. The problem is when the people decide, then a small faction use other means to get what they want to shove down the throats of the majority. Every state that voted on same-sex marriage voted against it.

You don’t get to vote on what rights other people get to have

Marriage isn't a right.

Equal protection of our laws is

So if a person says that public displays of affection between gay couples offends them, do those people have equal protection under the law to stop gay couples from showing affection in public?

To those on the left, they support democracy when it comes to having things done they support. When they oppose it being done, they consider the same method as mob rule by the right.

Everyone votes in their own best interests
That is how it works

 

[Conservative65]

You don’t get to vote on what rights other people get to have

Marriage isn't a right.

Equal protection of our laws is

So if a person says that public displays of affection between gay couples offends them, do those people have equal protection under the law to stop gay couples from showing affection in public?

To those on the left, they support democracy when it comes to having things done they support. When they oppose it being done, they consider the same method as mob rule by the right.

Everyone votes in their own best interests
That is how it works

No one said otherwise. It doesn't become mob rule because people vote in their own best interest and you disagree with what they support.

 

[rightwinger]

The "general welfare" clause was meant as a limitation on the taxation power. Even Hamilton made this point, before he hooked up with the banksters.

The Founders were revolting against the King of England, widely accused of taxing the colonies for his own welfare, and not that of the people he ruled. They wanted to make sure that future leaders of the US weren't allowed to tax us just to fatten up the state coffers.

Promote the General Welfare has nothing to do with taxation
It is HOW we use that revenue

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

 

[Conservative65]

The "general welfare" clause was meant as a limitation on the taxation power. Even Hamilton made this point, before he hooked up with the banksters.

The Founders were revolting against the King of England, widely accused of taxing the colonies for his own welfare, and not that of the people he ruled. They wanted to make sure that future leaders of the US weren't allowed to tax us just to fatten up the state coffers.

Promote the General Welfare has nothing to do with taxation
It is HOW we use that revenue

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

Those who refuse to earn it themselves. People with children aren't paying the taxes that go to fund the education of their own children.

Education can't be for general welfare. It isn't a delegated power of Congress.

 

[BS Filter]

The "general welfare" clause was meant as a limitation on the taxation power. Even Hamilton made this point, before he hooked up with the banksters.

The Founders were revolting against the King of England, widely accused of taxing the colonies for his own welfare, and not that of the people he ruled. They wanted to make sure that future leaders of the US weren't allowed to tax us just to fatten up the state coffers.

Promote the General Welfare has nothing to do with taxation
It is HOW we use that revenue

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

What about people on welfare that don't pay any taxes, yet their children are educated at the expense of others. Is that fair?

 

[Conservative65]

Promote the General Welfare has nothing to do with taxation
It is HOW we use that revenue

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

What about people on welfare that don't pay any taxes, yet their children are educated at the expense of others. Is that fair?

With social welfare, those getting the benefits aren't paying the taxes and those paying the taxes don't get from those programs.

 

[rightwinger]

Promote the General Welfare has nothing to do with taxation
It is HOW we use that revenue

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

What about people on welfare that don't pay any taxes, yet their children are educated at the expense of others. Is that fair?

Yes
Because educated children are in the best interests of the country

 

[rightwinger]

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

What about people on welfare that don't pay any taxes, yet their children are educated at the expense of others. Is that fair?

With social welfare, those getting the benefits aren't paying the taxes and those paying the taxes don't get from those programs.

Who writes the tax code?
The rich or the poor?

How much of the code is written to benefit the poor vs the rich?
How much benefits the middle class?

 

[BS Filter]

Correct, and how we use that revenue is limited by the enumerated powers.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that allows the government to take from one person and give it to another.

It almost sounds as if you think our government was founded on socialism, which it wasn't.

Like I've said, in all for helping the poor, I'm against government forcing you to help the poor by taking from one person and giving it to another.

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

What about people on welfare that don't pay any taxes, yet their children are educated at the expense of others. Is that fair?

Yes
Because educated children are in the best interests of the country

I agree. Since we agree educated children are in the best interests of the country, why isn't something being done about the high dropout rate among inner city schools in black neighborhoods in Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc? Why isn't cursive being taught? We have college graduates that can't even read the Constitution because it's in cursive. Our Federal education system is a disaster compared to other parts of the world. Our colleges are infested with Marxist professors indoctrinating instead of educating. Don't you agree we should remove the leftist political agenda and teach children to think for themselves instead of indoctrinating them to think like a Marxist?

 

[BS Filter]

You keep saying that
It shows you do not know what you are saying

We do not take from one and give to another

We collect revenue and decide how to best use that revenue for We the People

When the one getting it didn't earn it and the one funding it isn't getting it, it's called taking from one and giving to another.

Giving something to someone they didn't earn by forcing someone that did to pay for it, that's never the best. The best is to hold them responsible for supporting themselves. They'll either figure out they have to and solve the problem or they won't, go away, and still solve the problem.

Who did the government give YOUR money to?

EVERY government expenditure does not help people equally. People with no children pay to educate the children of others. Are you taking their money to give to others?
But education is for the General Welfare of the people

What about people on welfare that don't pay any taxes, yet their children are educated at the expense of others. Is that fair?

With social welfare, those getting the benefits aren't paying the taxes and those paying the taxes don't get from those programs.

Who writes the tax code?
The rich or the poor?

How much of the code is written to benefit the poor vs the rich?
How much benefits the middle class?

Doesn't matter who is wealthy or poor. Laws are for everyone. The Democrats are the tax party. Why don't you start there if you want change.