What do we agree upon?

[MaggieMae]

sorry cold - apparently there aren't enough threads about healthcare out there and some folks are determined to hijack this thread to discuss their healthcare positions.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. This is the second shift of the day weighing in on every thread.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.

One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.

Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.

Immie

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times. You show me anywhere in the constitution that states the govt. will provide for you when you fall on hard times.

I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned all the historic events that led up to extreme poverty (especially poverty pockets), nor did they envision the complete breakdown of the family as an institution, where we took care of our own until they died.

There is way too much in the Constitution that was either intentionally left ambiguous or omitted, since the framers were also smart enough to know that time wouldn't stand still and they really had no clue what the future would hold for modern societies. I get very tired of listing to the "Constitution" being used as a crutch. It was a set of basic common laws and guidelines, period.

You truly believe extreme poverty is a something new? The framers did expect us to take care of ourselves until we died, no where in the constitution does it say, when you get too old or are unable to work we (the govt.) will provide for you.

The constitution is not a crutch, it's what governs this country. This country would not be the country it is without it. I think it's people like you that want to interpret the constitution to fit your agenda. the general welfare clause is probably the most misinterpreted language in the constitution.

The General Welfare Clause is the Enemy not the Sixteenth Amendment By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If it is indeed a legitimate role for the govt. then show me where the constitution outlines that role.

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

The general welfare clause, found only in the Preamble, has been challenged in the USSC on a few occasions, but it's a gray area that has never been resolved. So Congress continues to make the laws, as reality commands, much of which goes unchallenged. To find the real debate on the subject, you'd need to study the Federalist papers, which I haven't done since college and forgotten most of it anyway. But the SAME arguments we're having here were had way back then--how much government control over individual lives is necessary to maintain the "pursuit of happiness."

It's not only in the preamble it's also in Article 1 Section 8.

Perhaps you should resume your studies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not in my opinion. My position that some folks just need a little more help in getting there than others and I have no problem with offering some help.



But everyone cannot climb Mt. Everest. There are some people who cannot achieve it no matter how hard they work. If you don't have enough red blood cells to carry oxygen to your brain, you can't climb everrest. If you can't take off from work for most of April and May, then you are not going to be able to Climb Mt. Everest.
If you have a thyroid condition that results in you weighing 700 pounds or so, you can't climb Mt. Everest. The fact that you found a case where a double amputee climbed everest doesn't (imho) prove that every human being regardless of all circumstances is capable of achieveing the same - and same thing with economic success.

You can offer all the help you want, that's your choice. But what about those that don't want to help, what choice do they have when the govt. takes their taxes and gives it to poor people most of which are able bodied Americans. I'm not agains thelping people, I'm against govt. interference and intrusion. Every community can take care of it's own when folks are hit by hard times, it is not the govt.'s. job.

You said an amputee wouldn't be able to climb Mt Everest because of phyical limitations. I proved you wrong and that's that. Get over it already! I said everyone that had the determination to climb a silly mountain could do it. Naturally not everyone is determined to climb a silly mountain, me included. You are only limited by your imagination and determination.

I'm sorry, but whenever I see the argument being made that someone is being taxed to support something he or she doesn't, I see red. I get taxed for some multi-million dollar defense department boondoggle that goes belly up. People who own homes pay ALL the taxes for ALL children to go to school. And on and on it goes. THAT'S WHAT TAXES ARE FOR. They do not separate out the tax bills thusly -- Well, let's see now. Joe doesn't have kids in school, so he shouldn't pay for Bob's kids to go to school. Take $3,000 from Joe's column and put it in Bob's column. Bob's son works for Lockheed and wants that dud of a plane built so he can keep working, but Joe mows lawns and doesn't care about aircraft at all, let alone ones that don't fly right. So take $10,000 from Bob's column and put it in Joe's.

Get it?

If you don't like where your tax money goes, raise hell about it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh and Maggie - I also agree with you in that I think Democrats are being ill served by Nancy Pelosi - but since I'm not a Democrat and since I don't live in her district, I REALLY don't have a dog in THAT fight.

I think she often seems so very mean-spirited and I think that hurts even worse than her far-left convictions.

I don't live in her district either, far from it, but I've watched her claw her way to the top, not unlike Tom DeLay, with arm-twisting and subtle I won't support yours (bill) unless you support mine in which case you'll be dead anyway...attitude. She is the epitome of why congress isn't trusted. She was elected by her colleagues to her speakership, but trust me, she didn't win it honestly.

There is an old saying, "Nice guys finish last."

But I like to think that they don't finish last, they are just heading for a different finish line.

Pelosi should review the historic coup against Newt Gingrich.

[From Wikipedia]

Leadership challenge
In the summer of 1997, a few House Republicans had come to see Gingrich's public image as a liability and attempted to replace him as Speaker. According to Time, the replacement was engineered by several Republican backbenchers, including Steve Largent of Oklahoma, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mark Souder of Indiana. They soon gained the support of the four Republicans who ranked directly below Gingrich in the House leadership—Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio, and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York.

On July 9, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon had the first of several secret meetings to discuss the rebellion. The next night, DeLay met with 20 of the plotters in Largent's office, and appeared to assure them that the leadership was with them.

Under the plan, Armey, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum; resign, or be voted out. Combined with the votes of the Democrats, there appeared to be enough votes to vacate the chair. However, the rebels decided that they wanted Paxon to be the new Speaker. At that point, Armey backed out, and told his chief of staff to warn Gingrich about the coup.

In response, Gingrich forced Paxon to resign his post, but backed off initial plans to force a vote of confidence in the rest of the Republican leadership.

By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him a target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation. His approval rating was 45% in April 1998.

Pelosi's approval rating is below that now.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think to prove that it is not a legitimate role of government, you would need to show where the constitution forbids it. But I think the phrase promote the general welfare can certainly be interpreted as allowing this type of thing.
Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these programs? It appears SCOTUS has obviously never ruled them unconstitutional.

I'm asking you to prove it is a legitimate role. Promote does not mean provide.

Look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

http://preciousonyx.xanga.com/689520854/to-promote-the-general-welfare-not-what-you-think-it-means/

Ah, but Jefferson said "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." (3/31/1809)

He's entitled to his opinion. But he didn't add that to the constitution....now did he?

I'm guessing you're pro-choice.

 

[MaggieMae]

In my opinion you are left of center(maybe not as far on the left as Pelosi) and that would make you a liberal in my book. But I digress, and I would like to see your source for the information you provided. Also you say that those in the system truly are in need? Well I beg to differ. When I see people using food stamps (or in some cases magnetic cards but cards, stamps or whatever it's still welfare) then driving away in a better car than most middle income folks can afford it gives me reason to pause. And then when I see help wanted signs in every fast food joint in town, I wonder why are these people on welfare when there is jobs to be had. The logical and resonable answer is these people do not want to work, it is far easier to let the govt. hand them a check or add money to their govt. issued credit card. Explain to me why any person on welfare would continually bear children? No one has yet been able to answer that question, but perhaps you can.

I've seen random examples like yours many times over the years--the woman using food stamps for potato chips and steaks and driving away in a Caddy. I'm suggesting those are not commonplace situations, but make for great gossip-fests and snickering among people who have never had to worry about where their next meal would come from. It doesn't make for very interesting news coverage talking about all the people out there who DON'T drive away in Escalades after they've paid for their groceries in food stamps, does it...

I could give you examples of what I think is extreme hypocrisy regarding criticism of truly needy people "on the government teet" as it's amusingly called. While watching some silly reality show called "Toddlers & Tiaras" the other night, there were 3 couples (the parents morbidly obese, by the way) who spent thousands of dollars dressing up their babies for fashion shows and spending all their waking hours "training" them for the runway. I had to ask myself which "government teet" was supporting THEM while they indulged in this idiotic fantasy. These were not even lower middle-class people. They were POOR, their homes less than trailer park quality. And they most certainly did not fit the accepted genre of the drug-addicted, fat and black welfare queen dragging 6 younguns around then climbing into an $80,000 vehicle.

I believe that kind of abuse is more common than most would like to acknowledge.

But since you do acknowledge the system is corrupt, why would you want to continue it?

I don't. It should be fixed to be more transparent, and in order to fix it there needs to be more eyes on the problems. There needs to be more involvement by the public (quick to criticize, but offer up no solutions). In the meantime, you can't just suddenly cut everything off either unless you want to be climbing over bodies.

 

[MaggieMae]

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times. You show me anywhere in the constitution that states the govt. will provide for you when you fall on hard times.

I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned all the historic events that led up to extreme poverty (especially poverty pockets), nor did they envision the complete breakdown of the family as an institution, where we took care of our own until they died.

There is way too much in the Constitution that was either intentionally left ambiguous or omitted, since the framers were also smart enough to know that time wouldn't stand still and they really had no clue what the future would hold for modern societies. I get very tired of listing to the "Constitution" being used as a crutch. It was a set of basic common laws and guidelines, period.

You truly believe extreme poverty is a something new? The framers did expect us to take care of ourselves until we died, no where in the constitution does it say, when you get too old or are unable to work we (the govt.) will provide for you.
I thought that was my point, adding only that they had no idea how out of control poverty would become.

The constitution is not a crutch, it's what governs this country. This country would not be the country it is without it. I think it's people like you that want to interpret the constitution to fit your agenda. the general welfare clause is probably the most misinterpreted language in the constitution.
No, it should not be a crutch. But it seems these days anytime someone disagrees with some public policy they shout that IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Well lots of stuff isn't. This is reality, 200+ years later.

The General Welfare Clause is the Enemy not the Sixteenth Amendment By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty

...

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm asking you to prove it is a legitimate role. Promote does not mean provide.

Look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

http://preciousonyx.xanga.com/689520854/to-promote-the-general-welfare-not-what-you-think-it-means/

Ah, but Jefferson said "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." (3/31/1809)

He's entitled to his opinion. But he didn't add that to the constitution....now did he?

I'm guessing you're pro-choice.

There you go again... Using the Constitution to bump your personal agenda. You might conclude that both Jefferson and Madison had extensive discussions over the practical application of many of the clauses in the Constitution AFTER it had been signed. And it remains to this day why there is a Supreme Court to decide upon the most contentious.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Personally I would stop every welfare program that exist because I feel these programs do nothing but enable the poor to remain poor. And the system is probably the most abused system we have. When I see people buying groceries with food stamps, then driving away in a brand new Escalade, something isn't right. Without a govt. handout these people would be forced to go to work and stop relying on the govt. to assist them.

Personally, I would not stop the programs, but I would modify them to prevent the abuses. There are times when people through no fault of their own end up needing help. I have no problem helping those in need, but unfortunately much of the program goes to people like you describe.

One thing I would do is require welfare recipients to work for the state one day every week or so. I would also help by providing daycare services for recipients when they do get back to work for a certain period of time because one of the issues that keep them where they are is the fact that the wages they earn when they go back to work are eaten up by daycare costs. So, eliminate that detriment to their re-entry to the work force.

Also, I would stop it from being a lifetime grant. Limit it unless the recipient can provide reasons for not returning to work in a given amount of time.

Immie

You point is well taken, but my point is it's not the govt.'s role to help you out when you fall on hard times. You show me anywhere in the constitution that states the govt. will provide for you when you fall on hard times.

You do recognise that poor people with NOTHING to lose make for VERY dangerous people. Part of the reason for social services is to keep society SAFE from DESPERATE PEOPLE.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Just like Lone beleives that people motivated enough to accomplish ANYTHING we can bring this post back to its intended purpose..........To demonstrate that we can ALL find things to agree upon. With that in mind I ask that people from BOTH sides of the aisle give examples of issues where they differ from their own political party.

 

[goldcatt]

I have no political party. Now what?

 

[Immanuel]

Just like Lone beleives that people motivated enough to accomplish ANYTHING we can bring this post back to its intended purpose..........To demonstrate that we can ALL find things to agree upon. With that in mind I ask that people from BOTH sides of the aisle give examples of issues where they differ from their own political party.

I don't belong to either party either.

Where do I differ from my side of the political spectrum?

Lots of places or actually, I would have to say that I hope I don't differ all that much. I am a conservative, but I believe in giving needy people a hand up. Although I am pro-life, I believe in compassion for the woman who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy. I do not believe in "gay marriage", but I believe that the state should not favor one part of society over another, therefore, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, as marriage is actually a rite of the church.

I am furious with the Republicans due to their stance on the removal or civil and human rights from people both U.S. citizens and non-citizens who have not been proven guilty of any crime. I despise the Patriot Act, torture of non-convicted prisoner and unwarranted wiretapping.

Honestly, I only hope there are other conservatives out there that believe as I do.

Immie

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Imm if "conservatives" actually believed like you do I would be a conservative. Thanks for the post.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

How the hell do these rep point work? I just lost 200 rep for attacking Israel?

 

[goldcatt]

IMO, mor epeople need to look at the complexity of the issues and embrace something other than "left" or "right". Most issues are far more complicated than two simple choices, why should we have to choose one label or the other? I prefer a more complex politics myself. Who cares where the ideas come from as long as they work?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

True enough but most people still do consider themselves either liberal or conservative either Democrat or Republican.

 

[goldcatt]

If I "had" to pick a label I lean more liberal than conservative. But I don't like being pigeonholed that way. Why in a nation we claim is built on individual liberty and the right to free political expression do we then try to shut he range of political thought up into one of two or three little neatly labeled boxes?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've seen random examples like yours many times over the years--the woman using food stamps for potato chips and steaks and driving away in a Caddy. I'm suggesting those are not commonplace situations, but make for great gossip-fests and snickering among people who have never had to worry about where their next meal would come from. It doesn't make for very interesting news coverage talking about all the people out there who DON'T drive away in Escalades after they've paid for their groceries in food stamps, does it...

I could give you examples of what I think is extreme hypocrisy regarding criticism of truly needy people "on the government teet" as it's amusingly called. While watching some silly reality show called "Toddlers & Tiaras" the other night, there were 3 couples (the parents morbidly obese, by the way) who spent thousands of dollars dressing up their babies for fashion shows and spending all their waking hours "training" them for the runway. I had to ask myself which "government teet" was supporting THEM while they indulged in this idiotic fantasy. These were not even lower middle-class people. They were POOR, their homes less than trailer park quality. And they most certainly did not fit the accepted genre of the drug-addicted, fat and black welfare queen dragging 6 younguns around then climbing into an $80,000 vehicle.

I believe that kind of abuse is more common than most would like to acknowledge.

But since you do acknowledge the system is corrupt, why would you want to continue it?

I don't. It should be fixed to be more transparent, and in order to fix it there needs to be more eyes on the problems. There needs to be more involvement by the public (quick to criticize, but offer up no solutions). In the meantime, you can't just suddenly cut everything off either unless you want to be climbing over bodies.

I offered a way to "fix" it. And that is by abolishing the entire program and let the communities deal with their own poor people. I'm confident it can be done more effectively and at a lower cost to tax payers by getting the federal govt. the hell out of it.

Yea I'm sure that welfare check saves many lives.

I believe it does more harm to society than good.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If I "had" to pick a label I lean more liberal than conservative. But I don't like being pigeonholed that way. Why in a nation we claim is built on individual liberty and the right to free political expression do we then try to shut he range of political thought up into one of two or three little neatly labeled boxes?

IMHO it is because it's easier than actually listening and responding to an individual