Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2017, 07:50 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,964 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
And so, you must be able to point us to where the founders clearly delineated what "social" welfare means?
They didn't, and that's the point. As such, social welfare programs are the purview of each of the states, according the the 10th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2017, 07:46 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,859,083 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
How does that matter when there is no stipulation in the Constitution that the welfare of citizens or persons is to be provided for?
Uh, duh, it matters because you are arguing about the Founding Fathers intent. You are arguing about what they meant. How can you do this without an understanding of what the words meant to them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 07:53 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,591,490 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
So let me post the text *again*, as you haven't read it. The word "promote" does not appear.



The verb "provide" applies to both the "common defense" and the "general welfare" in this sentence.



Disburse is not used. General welfare doesn't mean the same thing as we have developed the term "welfare" to mean in politics, but that political term is very clearly encompassed within the scope of the spending power of Congress.





*United States* as a political entity. There are very few limits on how Congress can decide to spend money under this clause of the Constitution. Subject to a few external limits (e.g., the Establishment Clause or hijacking State executive authority), it is for Congress to decide what "provide for the common defense and general welfare" includes. If Congress wants to provide what we use the term "welfare," to mean in politics, then the spending power gives Congress that authority.

You are a little late to the game.

Yes, and it is in there in the same sentence as promote. Making the meaning not the same, as they wish it to be. It does not say provide for the defense and provide general welfare. They are to sell the ideas and let the people make the educated choices for themselves.
Not the government choosing and then providing it. No freedom and liberty involved there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 07:55 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,859,083 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
You are a little late to the game.

Yes, and it is in there in the same sentence as promote. Making the meaning not the same, as they wish it to be. It does not say provide for the defense and provide for the general welfare.
YOU keep on saying that those arguing with you are trying to make the meaning the same. But in fact, that's untrue. You've been told it's untrue. And yet you persist in saying that. That seems pretty dishonest to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 07:56 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,964 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Uh, duh, it matters because you are arguing about the Founding Fathers intent. You are arguing about what they meant. How can you do this without an understanding of what the words meant to them?
They clearly used two different words in the same sentence: "provide" and "promote." That alone tells us all the two are not the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 09:57 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,859,083 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They clearly used two different words in the same sentence: "provide" and "promote." That alone tells us all the two are not the same thing.
NO ONE says they are the same thing.

But the aren't exclusive.

How about you share with us what you think the Founding Fathers meant by "welfare"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 10:05 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,964 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
NO ONE says they are the same thing.

But the aren't exclusive.
Neither are they the same. If the welfare of citizens or people were to be provided for by the Federal Government, the Constitution would have stated such. It doesn't. Social welfare programs that benefit citizens/people are the purview of each of the States, per the 10th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 10:19 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,859,083 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Neither are they the same. If the welfare of citizens or people were to be provided for by the Federal Government, the Constitution would have stated such. It doesn't. Social welfare programs that benefit citizens/people are the purview of each of the States, per the 10th Amendment.
No one says they are the same.

How about telling us what the Founding Fathers meant by the word "welfare"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,163,747 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Neither are they the same. If the welfare of citizens or people were to be provided for by the Federal Government, the Constitution would have stated such. It doesn't. Social welfare programs that benefit citizens/people are the purview of each of the States, per the 10th Amendment.
Instead of arguing semantics and linguistics:

How do you think Congress should "promote general welfare" for the country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top