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.
They are, however, charged to protect the general welfare.
So, what do the rich gain by giving more, and making sure that most Americans have the basics of survival?
Domestic tranquility. Could you imagine the trouble that would occur if a large percentage of Americans were hungry, homeless, and broke? The riots that would occur. The murder rate would sky rocket, and this country wouldn't be a good place for business.
So, the rich pay a little more, to keep things stable, so they can make more money. Thats the purpose behind welfare, food stamps, and other programs like that.
I leave unemployment and social security out because everyone pays into that system.
The Constitution says to "PROMOTE for the general welfare" , not protect or provide for it. You can be in favor of things without putting dollar value on them.
They are, however, charged to protect the general welfare.
So, what do the rich gain by giving more, and making sure that most Americans have the basics of survival?
Domestic tranquility. Could you imagine the trouble that would occur if a large percentage of Americans were hungry, homeless, and broke? The riots that would occur. The murder rate would sky rocket, and this country wouldn't be a good place for business.
So, the rich pay a little more, to keep things stable, so they can make more money. Thats the purpose behind welfare, food stamps, and other programs like that.
I leave unemployment and social security out because everyone pays into that system.
Promote the General Welfare within the powers that are enumerated, specifically given them and that only of which they are charged.
Outside of that the Federal government can not choose to expand their power.
This is given them by the People and States only.
The powers are limited for good cause.
This has nothing to do with people in need, sick, or in dire straights at all.
That's where family, community, churches and benevolent organizations come in.
In that too the government has injured by excessive taxes they use to run unauthorized programs.
That money used to stay with those that earned it and available for charity where it belongs, in the above mentioned areas.
Government has no authority to redistribute personal wealth (no matter large or small) and in antiethical to the precepts which upon our country was founded.
Those in power love to conjure up imaginary powers but that does not make them part of our Laws, only a law that is contrary and null and void.
Promote the General Welfare within the powers that are enumerated, specifically given them and that only of which they are charged.
Outside of that the Federal government can not choose to expand their power.
This is given them by the People and States only.
The powers are limited for good cause.
This has nothing to do with people in need, sick, or in dire straights at all.
That's where family, community, churches and benevolent organizations come in.
In that too the government has injured by excessive taxes they use to run unauthorized programs.
That money used to stay with those that earned it and available for charity where it belongs, in the above mentioned areas.
Government has no authority to redistribute personal wealth (no matter large or small) and in antiethical to the precepts which upon our country was founded.
Those in power love to conjure up imaginary powers but that does not make them part of our Laws, only a law that is contrary and null and void.
Different argument. We've been arguing over a strict reading of the Constitution, vs. Hamiltons interpretative view since the beginning of the country.
Both sides have merits, and both sides have been right depending on the various conditions of the country.
Why do you believe it is ok to take from people who work hard and give it to those who choose not to? What makes that OK? What happens if we all just stop working?
i have yet to read thru this whole thread but.......
Why do you believe it is ok to take from people who work hard and give it to those who choose not to? What makes that OK? What happens if we all just stop working?
It is not okay. However, not all that is taken from me/you/us goes to those who choose not to work.
Getting up and going to work everyday and not sitting on your fat ass having a tax payer pay your section 8 housing and food stamps for you when there's nothing wrong with your fat ass.....
Different argument. We've been arguing over a strict reading of the Constitution, vs. Hamiltons interpretative view since the beginning of the country.
Both sides have merits, and both sides have been right depending on the various conditions of the country.
Then you adhere to a "blown about by the wind" policy instead of Rule of Law.
Charity being good and beneficial to society and to those in need have no connection to the government exercising powers they do not have (granted), and yes by threat of force, over it's citizenry.
In interpretation I would much more follow that of Madison and Jefferson BTW and apparently.
The Constitution says what it says and it's meaning does not change for convienence.
So yes, it is pertinent, very much so.
We can't set it aside just because it suits an agenda it does not provide for.
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.
