You guys are wound up so tight that you can't tell the difference between Republican rhetoric and the actual constitution. Here's the Preamble, essentially why the document was written i.e. the role of the government they are establishing.
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.
Note that "promote the general welfare" right is alongside defense and liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is "capitalism" mentioned. I am not promoting socialism at all, simply an effectively regulated capitalistic system and a reasonable safety net that gives people the OPPORTUNITY for success (pursuit of happiness), not the assurance of it.
I think what we have here is your misunderstanding of "Promote the General Welare" as it was used in the constitution. You are correct that it does not mention capitalism, as it does not mention the powers of the govt are to "Provide for the general welfare " which socialists desire. Liberty is the parent of capitalism, the freedom to make ones way without govt intrusion, which is the heart of capitalism, maybe your problem is with liberty/freedom. The preamble states that "We the People" have the right to persue happiness but it is no guarantee, and nowhere does it say that any man has to give the sweat of his brow to support those less fortunate than himself, that would be theft.
General Welfare
The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.
The preamble reads: “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.”
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”
The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.
When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”
James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”
It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)
There is much more there on the subject, feel free to read on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
Read back and look at the definition I posted of socialism vs social democracy. You think America is something it is not and has not been. If you actually study history and not assume the version Fox News gives you is true you might find out that the founding fathers created pensions for revolutionary war soldiers.
We are neither a socialist country or a social democracy Alate, The USA is a Representative Republic, we are absolutely not a democracy in that majority rules it was designed to be that way for that very reason. I am really not sure of the point you are trying to make with the pension thing here but, for what it is worth these men who were given pensions worked for the money as soldiers did they not? I work for my pension also, as do you if you have one, there are not any pension guarantees in the constitution to my knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
The act for relief of sick and disabled seamen of 1798 imposed a tax on the wages of seamen which was then collected and used for healthcare for the injured and sick, what's that sound like? a smaller version of medicare. So this whole idea that big government is a new thing, is wrong. Surprise surprise.
A smaller version of medicare? Hardly. All military men to this very day that are disabled or sick during active duty have had the benefit of the US picking up the tab...ever heard of the VA? That was quite the stretch from disabled servicemen/women getting care to an entire nation being entitled to something they never sacrificed for? Your attempt at a parallel is quite convoluted that is what is surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
It amazes me that people actually believe things like this.
Believe it? Heck I lived it...Yes, I too attended college. I found the profs to be pushing their agendas into every class, even into mathematics which I thought could not be done. I just wanted to be educated not indoctrinated, sadly colleges today are a liberal socialist sounding boards instead of houses of higher learning. If one can manage to absorb the knowledge and ditch the agendas you can eek out a good education but, think how much better it would be if you did not have to hear the political rantings of a professor, nobody pays tuition for that, and really who cares what their political opinions are...Just my thoughts on the matter, I know we don't agree. To be fair though I must say I had a professor that I really respected because though we were on opposite sides ideologically he always was very fair, it was an advanced writing course and I think every paper I turned in I received an "A" with a note in red at the bottom stating " I really don't agree with you but, this is very well written", He was true to the profession and graded based on merit, as I think many do, though honestly Alate I had some teachers that I did not have that freedom with. I don't know what kind of Professor you are and I meant no personal dig with the statement I made and I was using the broad brush which may have not been fair, if so, I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
It's already essentially true, it's just republicans want to gut our existing safety net and undo healthcare reform. If Obama wins a second term and gets a majority in congress, that won't happen.
No, they are wanting to make the safety hammock into a safety net IMO,and as far as Obamacare it looks like that one may go down in flames on constitutional grounds...thank God for that. Obama winning plus a congressional majority! thats a tall order Alate but, I would not count your Anchiornis huxleyi's before their hatched
The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman
I think what we have here is your misunderstanding of "Promote the General Welare" as it was used in the constitution. You are correct that it does not mention capitalism, as it does not mention the powers of the govt are to "Provide for the general welfare " which socialists desire. Liberty is the parent of capitalism, the freedom to make ones way without govt intrusion, which is the heart of capitalism, maybe your problem is with liberty/freedom.
Seriously? How is there liberty and freedom if you're stuck in the social class you're born into? (social mobility in the US is lower than that in Europe currently) If the American dream doesn't work because the playing field is not even? I'm not talking about providing any more than the basics to keep people out of poverty and giving their children enough opportunity that they can succeed if they so choose. Government's job is to help make the playing field fair, not to decide winners and losers or to make all of the outcomes equal.
Quote:
The preamble states that "We the People" have the right to persue happiness but it is no guarantee, and nowhere does it say that any man has to give the sweat of his brow to support those less fortunate than himself, that would be theft.
Gee, except that's exactly what the injured seamen act does, taxes well seamen so they can provide for those that are less well off. And no seamen is not restricted to military personnel, in fact it's not even directed at them.
Section one of the Act directed each master of a vessel of the Unites States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States to pay to the Collector at the arrival port twenty cents per month from each seaman on board the vessel, which sum he was authorized to withhold from the wages of said seamen.[1] Section two of the Act forbid Collectors from renewing the license of vessels in the coasting trade unless the master of said vessel complied with the provisions of the Act and provided a penalty of a one hundred dollar fine for a masters failure to comply
Let's see, taxes, penalties and it's administered by the federal government, and back in 1798! Looks like some of those "founding fathers" disagreed with you.
And no we're not talking about a guarantee of bliss. Ask someone that's on assistance and rarely will they tell you they are happy about it.
Quote:
It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)[/box] http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
Sorry, not going to accept your random website (or is that your opinion?) as gospel, since in the history of the US we've done plenty of providing, government wise at least at a very basic level. And it hasn't been seen as a bad thing or as an unusual thing until reactionary Republicanism became popular.
Quote:
We are neither a socialist country or a social democracy Alate, The USA is a Representative Republic, we are absolutely not a democracy in that majority rules it was designed to be that way for that very reason. I am really not sure of the point you are trying to make with the pension thing here but, for what it is worth these men who were given pensions worked for the money as soldiers did they not? I work for my pension also, as do you if you have one, there are not any pension guarantees in the constitution to my knowledge.
No there aren't but pensions were part of the laws enacted by many of the same people that wrote the constitution.
Quote:
Believe it? Heck I lived it...Yes, I too attended college. I found the profs to be pushing their agendas into every class, even into mathematics which I thought could not be done. I just wanted to be educated not indoctrinated, sadly colleges today are a liberal socialist sounding boards instead of houses of higher learning.
I've no idea what college you went to, but I found no agendas being pushed in my undergraduate education. I've seen precious little of it in my co-workers, save a few right wing crazies that I know (and possibly one liberal). I generally don't even talk politics save in environmental science, where it's unavoidable and part of the curriculum.
Quote:
No, they are wanting to make the safety hammock into a safety net IMO,and as far as Obamacare it looks like that one may go down in flames on constitutional grounds...thank God for that. Obama winning plus a congressional majority! thats a tall order Alate but, I would not count your Anchiornis huxleyi's before their hatched
For the good of the country and the national debt you should be taking the opposite perspective. "Obamacare" while not ideal is one of the few pieces of legislation
What's even more hilarious is it is a REPUBLICAN IDEA. The same people that were promoting it now are crowing about it being unconsitutional. I really hope the court stays sane on this issue but I have a feeling it will go badly. Still the only answer to the healthcare problem then is either the die in the streets plan or medicare for all.
“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.
I was watching Susie Orman and a doctor called in that makes 22k a year, if I did not have insurance I would probably have to decline service even if it killed me because otherwise you will become an indentured servant to the hospital, good thing insurance is fairly cheap for an hsa plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
Seriously? How is there liberty and freedom if you're stuck in the social class you're born into? (social mobility in the US is lower than that in Europe currently) If the American dream doesn't work because the playing field is not even? I'm not talking about providing any more than the basics to keep people out of poverty and giving their children enough opportunity that they can succeed if they so choose. Government's job is to help make the playing field fair, not to decide winners and losers or to make all of the outcomes equal.
Gee, except that's exactly what the injured seamen act does, taxes well seamen so they can provide for those that are less well off. And no seamen is not restricted to military personnel, in fact it's not even directed at them.
Section one of the Act directed each master of a vessel of the Unites States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States to pay to the Collector at the arrival port twenty cents per month from each seaman on board the vessel, which sum he was authorized to withhold from the wages of said seamen.[1] Section two of the Act forbid Collectors from renewing the license of vessels in the coasting trade unless the master of said vessel complied with the provisions of the Act and provided a penalty of a one hundred dollar fine for a masters failure to comply
Let's see, taxes, penalties and it's administered by the federal government, and back in 1798! Looks like some of those "founding fathers" disagreed with you.
And no we're not talking about a guarantee of bliss. Ask someone that's on assistance and rarely will they tell you they are happy about it.
Sorry, not going to accept your random website (or is that your opinion?) as gospel, since in the history of the US we've done plenty of providing, government wise at least at a very basic level. And it hasn't been seen as a bad thing or as an unusual thing until reactionary Republicanism became popular.
No there aren't but pensions were part of the laws enacted by many of the same people that wrote the constitution.
I've no idea what college you went to, but I found no agendas being pushed in my undergraduate education. I've seen precious little of it in my co-workers, save a few right wing crazies that I know (and possibly one liberal). I generally don't even talk politics save in environmental science, where it's unavoidable and part of the curriculum.
For the good of the country and the national debt you should be taking the opposite perspective. "Obamacare" while not ideal is one of the few pieces of legislation
What's even more hilarious is it is a REPUBLICAN IDEA. The same people that were promoting it now are crowing about it being unconsitutional. I really hope the court stays sane on this issue but I have a feeling it will go badly. Still the only answer to the healthcare problem then is either the die in the streets plan or medicare for all.
Most people here make over $9 an hour. There are a lot of factories around here (by around here, I mean about 25 miles in any direction from my house...remember, I live out in the boonies). And, most families include two working parents here.
has been talking about getting a roommate. I've been trying to convince her to buy a house instead of rent an apartment. Personally, I cannot see paying as much for rent as I do for my mortgage payment and not have anything to show for it.
Yup, she can then rent the other rooms and even move out keeping it as a rental if she likes. Keep her making good business decisions
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
You guys are wound up so tight that you can't tell the difference between Republican rhetoric and the actual constitution. Here's the Preamble, essentially why the document was written i.e. the role of the government they are establishing.
has been talking about getting a roommate. I've been trying to convince her to buy a house instead of rent an apartment. Personally, I cannot see paying as much for rent as I do for my mortgage payment and not have anything to show for it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Linear Mode
