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

[rightwinger]

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Me first absolutely DOES cut it, and your denial of that, is why AMERICANS no longer support Democrats, and thus, they have to import foreigners to get VOTES.

"economic alliances" is not equivalent to the current process of anti-American remittance imperialism, practiced by Mexico, China, India, Guatemala, et al, who have long been abusing the USA.

It’s kind of like being on a Basketball team and telling your teammates that you are going to score as many points as you can. So the other teammates also shoot the ball every time they get it.

Me First is not the way to win ball games

 

[rightwinger]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

I think the next phrase over explains everything...to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare.

Actually the phrase is PROVIDE the common defense and general welfare

 

[protectionist]

It’s kind of like being on a Basketball team and telling your teammates that you are going to score as many points as you can. So the other teammates also shoot the ball every time they get it.

Me First is not the way to win ball games

Ridiculously invalid analogy. Me first is simply US politicians doing the job they were hired to do > look out for their constituents and the USA, not do anything at all to get re-elected.

And US politician are not on a "team" with other countries. They are on a team with other US politicians, working for the good of the US.

 

[rightwinger]

It’s kind of like being on a Basketball team and telling your teammates that you are going to score as many points as you can. So the other teammates also shoot the ball every time they get it.

Me First is not the way to win ball games

Ridiculously invalid analogy. Me first is simply US politicians doing the job they were hired to do > look out for their constituents and the USA, not do anything at all to get re-elected.

And US politician are not on a "team" with other countries. They are on a team with other US politicians, working for the good of the US.

No, actually the US performs better economically as a team

If the US wants a trade war with China, we are stronger if we team with EU to compete with China

Trump declared a trade war against EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan and S Korea......as well as China

 

[protectionist]

No, actually the US performs better economically as a team

If the US wants a trade war with China, we are stronger if we team with EU to compete with China

Trump declared a trade war against EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan and S Korea......as well as China

one doesn't "team" with enemies, and doesn't do better economically teaming with them. As far as China is concerned, we don't need help to fix our China problem. We already control China - they need us. We don't need them.

 

[rightwinger]

No, actually the US performs better economically as a team

If the US wants a trade war with China, we are stronger if we team with EU to compete with China

Trump declared a trade war against EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan and S Korea......as well as China

one doesn't "team" with enemies, and doesn't do better economically teaming with them. As far as China is concerned, we don't need help to fix our China problem. We already control China - they need us. We don't need them.

Europe, Canada, Mexico, Japan and S Korea aren’t our enemies

 

[g5000]

No, actually the US performs better economically as a team

If the US wants a trade war with China, we are stronger if we team with EU to compete with China

Trump declared a trade war against EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan and S Korea......as well as China

one doesn't "team" with enemies, and doesn't do better economically teaming with them. As far as China is concerned, we don't need help to fix our China problem. We already control China - they need us. We don't need them.

We need them to buy Trump's debt he is running up.

 

[g5000]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

I think the next phrase over explains everything...to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare.

Actually the phrase is PROVIDE the common defense and general welfare

From 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 defense, 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.


From Section 8: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


"Provide" and "promote" appear to be synonymous to the writers.

 

[danielpalos]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

I think the next phrase over explains everything...to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare.

Actually the phrase is PROVIDE the common defense and general welfare

From 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 defense, 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.


From Section 8: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


"Provide" and "promote" appear to be synonymous to the writers.

We are to Promote the general welfare whenever possible, not the general warfare nor the common offense.

 

[IM2]

General, not specific.

public assistance is unconstitutional.

.

No it isn't.

 

[IM2]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

They meant the general well being. You ready to pull those millionaires and billionaires off the republican induced welfare plantation that costs us much, much more?

This is dog whistle bullshit.

 

[regent]

America had welfare before it declared its independence from Britain and always found a way to help the unfortunates. Do we remember the "work or poor farms" in colonial America? And as America grew, welfare increased. Lincoln in l1854 said, "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, and can not do, at all or cannot do for themselves." Could those be the words of a of a Republican president?



















t

 

[regent]

The term "General Welfare" was tackled by the Supreme Court in 1937. The Court was in the process of affirming the New Deal, said "Taxes could be used for whatever use the legislature chose so long as they promoted the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

We need to abolish general warfare spending not general welfare spending.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to abolish general warfare spending not general welfare spending.

Not abolish but bring it to reasonable levels. We don’t need a military stronger than the next eight countries combined

By investing so heavily in a global military presence, we give up many things......modern infrastructure, education, healthcare

 

[danielpalos]

We need to abolish general warfare spending not general welfare spending.

Not abolish but bring it to reasonable levels. We don’t need a military stronger than the next eight countries combined

By investing so heavily in a global military presence, we give up many things......modern infrastructure, education, healthcare

I agree with you to this Constitutional extent;

Our welfare clause is General not Limited or Common; and we have a Commerce Clause in particular.

That must imply the use of Capitalism to make money even to fund any given public policy.

We really just need more optimal Commerce policies to reduce taxes.

 

[BrokeLoser]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

They meant the general well being. You ready to pull those millionaires and billionaires off the republican induced welfare plantation that costs us much, much more?

This is dog whistle bullshit.

Do you view tax reductions as welfare?
Do you think investing in Guadalupe and ShaQuita offers an ROi for good, real, productive Americans?

 

[rightwinger]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

They meant the general well being. You ready to pull those millionaires and billionaires off the republican induced welfare plantation that costs us much, much more?

This is dog whistle bullshit.

Do you view tax reductions as welfare?
Do you think investing in Guadalupe and ShaQuita offers an ROi for good, real, productive Americans?

It having a poor class of people like Calcutta is a wise investment for any society

 

[BrokeLoser]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

They meant the general well being. You ready to pull those millionaires and billionaires off the republican induced welfare plantation that costs us much, much more?

This is dog whistle bullshit.

Do you view tax reductions as welfare?
Do you think investing in Guadalupe and ShaQuita offers an ROi for good, real, productive Americans?

It having a poor class of people like Calcutta is a wise investment for any society

Early WHITE settlers built this nation starting out with fishing poles, rifles and tents...Our dark folks can’t get started or improve themselves with $22T dollars thrown at them...Why do you think that is?

 

[rightwinger]

The first

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

They meant the general well being. You ready to pull those millionaires and billionaires off the republican induced welfare plantation that costs us much, much more?

This is dog whistle bullshit.

Do you view tax reductions as welfare?
Do you think investing in Guadalupe and ShaQuita offers an ROi for good, real, productive Americans?

It having a poor class of people like Calcutta is a wise investment for any society

Early WHITE settlers built this nation starting out with fishing poles, rifles and tents...Our dark folks can’t get started or improve themselves with $22T dollars thrown at them...Why do you think that is?

sorry....not biting on racist trolling today