Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? I think you better research my posts in regards to that topic, because I've said time and again that I think corporate welfare also needs to be eliminated as well. Bush and Obama both had a hand in bailing out corporations that made p*** poor business decisions. If I own a business, and it goes under, that is on me. Why should it be any different for a large company? Progressivism relies on too much group think, and the collective, and therefore you lose your individuality.
As for welfare to help the poor. I realize people fall on hard times, and of course I'm not talking about the sick, and elderly, those who truly need it. I believe in a hand up, not a hand out. At some point the individual has to pull themselves up and make an effort to better themselves.
This is kind of a strawman. Welfare is strictly an economic stabilizer. It doesn't necessitate a sermon about conservative values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
Free speech isn't modern? Right of self protection? Having something that keeps the government from spying on your personal life (ooops that one went away a while ago)? I will give it to you that there are a few items that no longer apply. I don't think I need protection from having troops quartered in my house nor does the Congress need to power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal (although it would be fun to get one).
Government does not equal society. Society is individuals acting under their own free will. I would give more to charity if I weren't already being taxed out the wazoo to have it redistributed to others. I would determine which groups and organizations I want to give to. With government, it is the people in power at the time who determine this.
No, society is a group living in an ordered community for a common goal (usually the sustainability of the species). "Free will" doesn't really fit into the raw definition of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personwhoisaperson
You can't call it a "primitive document" and then site it to fit your point. It makes you point, pretty much, invalid.
The governments job is clearly laid out for them in the constitution. If they would follow it this country would be much better off. Just sayin'.
No it is not invalid. I'm on record several times saying the constitution is old. Most countries (and U.S. states) have modernized theirs or re-written altogether to adapt to the times. We can't even pass simple budget bills, let alone amend the constitution. It was created when we were living off the land, not when 90% of 315 million people were living in metro areas.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."
The Food Stamp program was passed by an Act of Congress in 1964 (7 U.S.C. Chapter 51):
.....
To date the Supreme Court has never found that the Food Stamp Act is unconstitional.
Just because the Supreme Court has not found the Food Stamp Act unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't. The internment of American citizens of Japanese and German heritage during WWII was found constitutional but it was wrong on many levels.
The Supreme Court has been out of control for almost a century since no one in Congress has the guts to impeach a judge who rules against the Constitution.
That primitive document is over 200 years old and doesn't address the concerns of a modern society. The government also has a constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare. Having millions of people that need aid to afford food is a serious problem, which is why the government intervenes. A contemporary moral society has no place to tell them all to go starve, while corporations and CEOs have more money than they know how to spend.
Yeah, I know... that silly Constitution is such an outdated rag!......... That so-called "primitive document" that you call it stands the test of time. The forefathers of this nation, while not without their flaws (they're human, and therefore not perfect) were smart in knowing that the government should not have that much power over the people.
How does individual Liberty & Freedom, conflict with everyone being equal, when we all have the freedom to choose our own paths in life?
I think the Federal Government has taken a role in our lives, that was never intended within the Constitution.
Picking the winners & losers, is in no way treating us all equal. It is an an effort to try an make us all equal. Punishing people, to reward others is not liberty. It is very oppressive.
The feel good laws that are made every year, no longer maintain our individual freedom, they are made to restrict it. Think about that.
This is fictional nonsense.
Look all governments are created by the rich and powerful to serve the rich and powerful.
For some reason conservatives can't see all the ways in which the rich and powerful hugely benefit from having a government.
This simple reality is invisible to conservatives.
So for conservatives, the rich and powerful are naturally rich and powerful who made it without help from the government.
This perspective of course has zero basis in reality. Since governments are always set up by the rich and powerful and exist to mostly serve the needs of the rich and powerful.
conservatives live in a fantasy world were the rich and powerful are hurt by the government, the upper middle class and middle class are ignored by the government and the poor get everything from the government.
This is their central critique and it is pure fantasy.
Getting on to more reality, government always picks winners and losers. This is an inevitability of having a nation, a society, a government that makes choices and decisions that impacts everyone's lives.
conservatives just like to pretend that the decisions the government make that benefit rich and powerful people are freedom and the choices the government makes to help poor Americans is stealing freedom.
Free speech isn't modern? Right of self protection? Having something that keeps the government from spying on your personal life (ooops that one went away a while ago)? I will give it to you that there are a few items that no longer apply. I don't think I need protection from having troops quartered in my house nor does the Congress need to power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal (although it would be fun to get one).
Government does not equal society. Society is individuals acting under their own free will. I would give more to charity if I weren't already being taxed out the wazoo to have it redistributed to others. I would determine which groups and organizations I want to give to. With government, it is the people in power at the time who determine this.
Just because the Supreme Court has not found the Food Stamp Act unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't. The internment of American citizens of Japanese and German heritage during WWII was found constitutional but it was wrong on many levels.
The Supreme Court has been out of control for almost a century since no one in Congress has the guts to impeach a judge who rules against the Constitution.
You are correct that the Preamble is not 'law' per se, but it is considered a declaration of intention of how the Constitution should be interpreted.
As one instance, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution begins as follows:
"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;"
There follows a list of some of the powers of Congress, but it has never been interpreted as being a 'fixed' list, hence the ending:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof".
As a citizen of the United States you do have 'standing' to file suit in a Federal District Court seeking to have the Food Stamp Act of 1964 declared unconstitional. I doubt any attorney would take the case on 'speculation', as I like to call it.
Look all governments are created by the rich and powerful to serve the rich and powerful.
For some reason conservatives can't see all the ways in which the rich and powerful hugely benefit from having a government.
This simple reality is invisible to conservatives.
So for conservatives, the rich and powerful are naturally rich and powerful who made it without help from the government.
This perspective of course has zero basis in reality. Since governments are always set up by the rich and powerful and exist to mostly serve the needs of the rich and powerful.
conservatives live in a fantasy world were the rich and powerful are hurt by the government, the upper middle class and middle class are ignored by the government and the poor get everything from the government.
This is their central critique and it is pure fantasy.
Getting on to more reality, government always picks winners and losers. This is an inevitability of having a nation, a society, a government that makes choices and decisions that impacts everyone's lives.
conservatives just like to pretend that the decisions the government make that benefit rich and powerful people are freedom and the choices the government makes to help poor Americans is stealing freedom.
Ahh yes, another "conservatives are bad" rant coming from you. Why do you feel you need the government to pick and choose and make your decisions for you?
No it is not invalid. I'm on record several times saying the constitution is old. Most countries (and U.S. states) have modernized theirs or re-written altogether to adapt to the times. We can't even pass simple budget bills, let alone amend the constitution. It was created when we were living off the land, not when 90% of 315 million people were living in metro areas.
Totally missing my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs
That primitive document is over 200 years old and doesn't address the concerns of a modern society. The government also has a constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare.
You see my point yet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.........
That so-called "primitive document" that you call it stands the test of time. The forefathers of this nation, while not without their flaws (they're human, and therefore not perfect) were smart in knowing that the government should not have that much power over the people.
Think about that.
