The Case for Republican Economic Sabotage

[Conservative]

When PRESIDENT PERRY takes office, he will restore the USA to our rightful status, with Gods help.

 

[poet]

This message is hidden because Tea Party Conservative is on your ignore list.

 

[apple0154]

How's this for a conspiracy theory: those who have actually held the majority of power the last 3 years, and a significant portion of power the last 5, are deliberately destroying the economy in the hopes of eventually rebuilding it along their dreams of absolute despotic socialism. Now that is a conspiracy theory that at least fits the facts and actions of the federal government these past few years.

I prefer the theory the GOP deliberately destroyed the economy by starting wars while lowering taxes. They knew jobs were going overseas and people would be facing unemployment but they deliberately drained the funds that should have been available for those affected.

Of course, no job equals no medical, in most cases. Then, to continue their plan, they pitted worker against worker by ranting about how much union members make. They played on people's lowest instincts of fear and jealousy blaming union workers for the financial schemes perpetrated by the government.

Those who object to ObamaCare will be thankful when they lose their job and medical coverage. They will be thankful for any other so-called Socialist plan when they finally realize the Republican government has systematically driven the average person into poverty. And what better way for the rich to get richer than to make the poor even poorer?

It's the Republican doing that set the stage for Obama's plans. He's trying to stop the flow of money from the poor to the wealthy by ensuring everyone has minimal health care and supporting unions that have worked decades to raise the working people's standard of living.

The first thing people have to realize is there is no shortage of money in the country. The corporations and the wealthy have it. Common sense tells us the money does not just disappear. It has to have gone somewhere and the somewhere is in the pockets of the wealthy and corporations through tax cuts and military spending.

So, to stop the slide from middle class to poor to destitute Obama is implementing policies that will stop the slide such as ObamaCare. The poorest of the poor will be entitled to medical care. It's nothing but sheer ignorance for anyone to believe the richest country on the face of the earth can not look after it's ill and poor. It's ludicrous for anyone to even suggest such a thing and Obama is making sure such craziness is stopped. The "free market", the "invisible hand", the "capitalist system", the "free enterprise system"....they all had over 200 years to prove their worth and now people are faced with losing their jobs and homes and medical coverage. It's a disgrace!

One more Obama term and everyone can look forward to a new paradigm, a new reality. A reality where people are not discarded as rubbish and left to struggle and suffer and, ultimately, die due to a lack of basic necessities.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Keep up the anti-republican, "it's all their fault" rhetoric, guys, and see where it gets you. The general public is catching on. They were there, watching, when dems argued among themselves and got absolutely nothing done for two years, except shove a gigantic, unconstitutional piece of legislative garbage down the peoples' throats. They watched as we spent $840 billion dollars on empty promises laughingly referred to as "shovel ready jobs", for which there were no shovels (or jobs). They watched as the current administration claimed saving millions of jobs while unemployment climbed. They watched the government bail out GM, only to have GM file for bankruptcy anyway.

The republicans have been out of the power seat in congress for almost 5 years now, and totally out of power the first two years of the Obama administration. Yet it is still the fault of the republicans, who, for the first several months of the 111th Congress, could not have even filibustered a single item the democrats wanted passed, let alone blocked it in a direct vote. Yet, according to some truly MINDLESS democratic apologists, it is still all the fault of a minority faction within a party which has controlled only one house of congress for less than a year.

You people are worse than pathetic.

How's this for a conspiracy theory: those who have actually held the majority of power the last 3 years, and a significant portion of power the last 5, are deliberately destroying the economy in the hopes of eventually rebuilding it along their dreams of absolute despotic socialism. Now that is a conspiracy theory that at least fits the facts and actions of the federal government these past few years.

 

[Rune]

Just how do you think you can excise the monied neo-cons?

Real question.

 

[apple0154]

Real question.

Tax all money they receive.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Tax all money they receive.

re·ceive
/riˈsēv/Verb
1. Be given, presented with, or paid (something).

Any receipt of payment, is considered by the IRS as taxable income. Thus, we already tax all the money they receive.

You mistakingly and ignorantly wish to count monies they haven't received yet, funds which have gone into retirement accounts or tax-free investments. This money has been earned, but has not yet been received. When it is received, a tax will be paid on the money as if it were regular taxable income. Therefore, eventually, all of this money will ultimately have income taxes paid on it. If, for some reason, the individual should croak before they do receive the money as taxable income, it becomes part of the estate, and an estate tax is levied instead. One way or the other, a tax will be paid on 100% of this money in time.

The problem with simple-minded and shallow 'solutions' here, is the consequences. You say we should just make everyone pay tax on any money they earn, no matter if it is going into a retirement account or what... but you have to consider why we established these things to begin with, and it was to address some problem we were having that needed this as a solution... the result of removing this solution, is logically, the problem returns. Following me so far, pinheads? So why did we set up a tax-free retirement fund system? Because most Americans aren't Communists who believe the State should have full control and responsibility for our lives, they believe they have a personal obligation to provide for their future, and put away for their retirement. Knowing that Social Security is going under, and government is not going to be able to take care of everyone in their old age, we thought it might be responsible of us to ENCOURAGE people to save money for retirement. Therefore, we set up IRAs and such, to help address this growing concern. You see, by making IRA and 401k contributions tax-free, people are more likely to put more money in... and the more money people make, the more likely they are to put even more in, in fact, the maximum they can. But this causes jealous wealth-envied liberals to moan and complain, that people who pay 60% of our taxes, aren't paying 'their fair share'.

People already PAY TAXES! No one is rich and wealthy and getting away with not paying their taxes, with the exception of Charlie Rangel and a host of Democrat politicians and administration officials. We do have tax breaks, we do have tax incentives, we do allow tax shelters and investments, and we have reasons for all of it, related to some problem that we had to address. I'm all for looking at ways to make taxation more fair... like the FAIR TAX... But to randomly cherry-pick the tax code for things you think we can not give a tax break for... that's not going to help anything, except your stupid liberal conscience. Every 'item de jour' you come up with, has an associated downside, a problem that will re-emerge, because we took the finger out of the dike. You've not thought about any of that because you are an emotive retard liberal, who doesn't think... you feeeeeeeeeel.

 

[Good Luck]

Tax all money they receive.

Ahh, yes, let's tax the opposition into submission.

Nice little totalitarian plan you have. Why not take the direct route and simply outlaw opposing views? (You can still tax them....)

 

[Good Luck]

I prefer the theory the GOP deliberately destroyed the economy by starting wars while lowering taxes. They knew jobs were going overseas and people would be facing unemployment but they deliberately drained the funds that should have been available for those affected.

Of course, no job equals no medical, in most cases. Then, to continue their plan, they pitted worker against worker by ranting about how much union members make. They played on people's lowest instincts of fear and jealousy blaming union workers for the financial schemes perpetrated by the government.

Those who object to ObamaCare will be thankful when they lose their job and medical coverage. They will be thankful for any other so-called Socialist plan when they finally realize the Republican government has systematically driven the average person into poverty. And what better way for the rich to get richer than to make the poor even poorer?

It's the Republican doing that set the stage for Obama's plans. He's trying to stop the flow of money from the poor to the wealthy by ensuring everyone has minimal health care and supporting unions that have worked decades to raise the working people's standard of living.

The first thing people have to realize is there is no shortage of money in the country. The corporations and the wealthy have it. Common sense tells us the money does not just disappear. It has to have gone somewhere and the somewhere is in the pockets of the wealthy and corporations through tax cuts and military spending.

So, to stop the slide from middle class to poor to destitute Obama is implementing policies that will stop the slide such as ObamaCare. The poorest of the poor will be entitled to medical care. It's nothing but sheer ignorance for anyone to believe the richest country on the face of the earth can not look after it's ill and poor. It's ludicrous for anyone to even suggest such a thing and Obama is making sure such craziness is stopped. The "free market", the "invisible hand", the "capitalist system", the "free enterprise system"....they all had over 200 years to prove their worth and now people are faced with losing their jobs and homes and medical coverage. It's a disgrace!

One more Obama term and everyone can look forward to a new paradigm, a new reality. A reality where people are not discarded as rubbish and left to struggle and suffer and, ultimately, die due to a lack of basic necessities.

Of COURSE you prefer the theory that demonizes republicans. Democrats are the epitomy of purity, while republicans are incarnations of Satan's own demons. The republicans INTENDED the economy to fail by spending $800 Billion on an unnecessary war. Yet the $1.7 trillion spent by democrats with absolutely nothing to show for it had no detrimental effects on the economy, because it was democrats doing the spending, not republicans.

Blame the republicans is all you have any more. Democratic plans have failed, utterly and totally. But it's still the republican's fault. it's laughable the exuses you people are resorting to in order to continue support for your failed policies. I am sure the billionaires of the world are eager to take down the very economic strata that gives them their billions. It just makes total sense. Who actually LOSES if an economy actually fails in total collapse? Who loses the most if monetary value goes in the tank - a direction we could well be headed right now? Those who have lots of the suddenly valueless money, or those who have little?

The reality of the situation is the wealthy thrive far better on a healthy economy than they do on a weak, struggling, or especially, contracting economy. For that matter, the wealthy thrive far better when there is a healthy, thriving middle class. A healthy thriving middle class can buy more goods and services, and selling more goods and services is what gives the wealthy more wealth. The poor can afford little, can buy little, and that is not good for the wealthy who are deriving their wealth by selling goods and services. Having a large contingent of poor is a drain on any economy, and as a result, diminishes overall wealth - including that of the wealthy. This is true regardless of the tax structure. Even if we were to have a flat tax system where everyone paid the same rates, it is better for the wealthy to have fewer poor and more middle class. The idea that the wealthy want MORE poor is ridiculous in the extreme - a typical liberal lie. So the idea that the republicans, in service to the wealthy, deliberately sabotaged the economy to make more poor and destroy the middle class is nothing less than the outright fatastical LIES of those who wish to demonize the entire concept of conservative fiscal policies.

OTOH, the democrats gain power from having more poor. The poor are their power base, because they make outrageous empty promises to keep the poor voting for them, while sticking them in their maliciously designed traps of government assistance. They keep the poor down, while giving them programs to raise them up. The offer them assistance in housing, food, childcare, cash money just for shits and grins, and them take it away whenever anyone shows the desire to make it on their own.

So, on one hand we have republicans, supposedly champions of the wealthy. Good, strong economies are good for the wealthy. The wealthy gain more wealth that in a strong economy. Weak economies are bad for the wealthy. They may still make gains in relation to the middle class and poor, but they make less than they would in a strong economy - far less. Less money in the economy as a whole means less money for them. On the other hand, we have democratic party and liberalism, whose primary political power is derived from a base of the poor and struggling. The more poor and struggling there are looking for help from the benevolence of government, the more votes they have in their pockets. Now, if you really want to talk about conspiracy theories, who actually would benefit more from sabotaging the economy?

 

[DamnYankee]

Tax all money they receive.

That still wouldn't be enough to erase the debt.

 

[Rune]

Just how do you think you can excise the monied neo-cons?

STY still ignoring this question.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

STY still ignoring this question.

not ignoring it. it's been answered many times to you by several of us. it's wholly your issue if you don't wish to accept it.

 

[Good Luck]

Just how do you think you can excise the monied neo-cons?

Mostly by ignoring them, denouncing their extremism as necessary.

The power of money in elections has to do with controlling information. It's not like monied interests can directly buy an election. However, the TEA party core is comprised of people who are probably among the most cynical when it comes to using media outlets - or especially political ads - for their information sources. TEA party members also tend to be more active in politics than average, meaning as a group they are less likely to simply take a politician, or advocate, at their word. With the advent of the internet, and the additional factor of a large group of people who use it to debunk and/or verify information found in the media or political ads, and the power of money is minimized. One heavy point in favor of the internet, as well as large groups of people who don't take the traditional "It's there in black and white" at face value.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

so dune has a problem with money in politics. i bet dune never had a problem with obama's half billion+ political war chest after he broke his promise to use public financing like mccain.

 

[Bfgrn]

Of COURSE you prefer the theory that demonizes republicans. Democrats are the epitomy of purity, while republicans are incarnations of Satan's own demons. The republicans INTENDED the economy to fail by spending $800 Billion on an unnecessary war. Yet the $1.7 trillion spent by democrats with absolutely nothing to show for it had no detrimental effects on the economy, because it was democrats doing the spending, not republicans.

Blame the republicans is all you have any more. Democratic plans have failed, utterly and totally. But it's still the republican's fault. it's laughable the exuses you people are resorting to in order to continue support for your failed policies. I am sure the billionaires of the world are eager to take down the very economic strata that gives them their billions. It just makes total sense. Who actually LOSES if an economy actually fails in total collapse? Who loses the most if monetary value goes in the tank - a direction we could well be headed right now? Those who have lots of the suddenly valueless money, or those who have little?

The reality of the situation is the wealthy thrive far better on a healthy economy than they do on a weak, struggling, or especially, contracting economy. For that matter, the wealthy thrive far better when there is a healthy, thriving middle class. A healthy thriving middle class can buy more goods and services, and selling more goods and services is what gives the wealthy more wealth. The poor can afford little, can buy little, and that is not good for the wealthy who are deriving their wealth by selling goods and services. Having a large contingent of poor is a drain on any economy, and as a result, diminishes overall wealth - including that of the wealthy. This is true regardless of the tax structure. Even if we were to have a flat tax system where everyone paid the same rates, it is better for the wealthy to have fewer poor and more middle class. The idea that the wealthy want MORE poor is ridiculous in the extreme - a typical liberal lie. So the idea that the republicans, in service to the wealthy, deliberately sabotaged the economy to make more poor and destroy the middle class is nothing less than the outright fatastical LIES of those who wish to demonize the entire concept of conservative fiscal policies.

OTOH, the democrats gain power from having more poor. The poor are their power base, because they make outrageous empty promises to keep the poor voting for them, while sticking them in their maliciously designed traps of government assistance. They keep the poor down, while giving them programs to raise them up. The offer them assistance in housing, food, childcare, cash money just for shits and grins, and them take it away whenever anyone shows the desire to make it on their own.

So, on one hand we have republicans, supposedly champions of the wealthy. Good, strong economies are good for the wealthy. The wealthy gain more wealth that in a strong economy. Weak economies are bad for the wealthy. They may still make gains in relation to the middle class and poor, but they make less than they would in a strong economy - far less. Less money in the economy as a whole means less money for them. On the other hand, we have democratic party and liberalism, whose primary political power is derived from a base of the poor and struggling. The more poor and struggling there are looking for help from the benevolence of government, the more votes they have in their pockets. Now, if you really want to talk about conspiracy theories, who actually would benefit more from sabotaging the economy?

Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser wrapped it up very succinctly. "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

And conservatism has a HUGE empathy deficit.

“I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit -- the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us -- the child who's hungry, the steelworker who's been laid-off, the family who lost the entire life they built together when the storm came to town. When you think like this -- when you choose to broaden your ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers -- it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.”
Barack Obama

 

[cawacko]

Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser wrapped it up very succinctly. "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

And conservatism has a HUGE empathy deficit.

“I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit -- the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us -- the child who's hungry, the steelworker who's been laid-off, the family who lost the entire life they built together when the storm came to town. When you think like this -- when you choose to broaden your ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers -- it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.”
Barack Obama

What is meant by empathy here is more government programs.

 

[Alias]

Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser wrapped it up very succinctly. "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

And conservatism has a HUGE empathy deficit.

“I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit -- the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us -- the child who's hungry, the steelworker who's been laid-off, the family who lost the entire life they built together when the storm came to town. When you think like this -- when you choose to broaden your ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers -- it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.”
Barack Obama

I suggest you enter the ministry or come kind of service job. The government's role is not to make sure someone has shoes and a bed.

 

[Good Luck]

"I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit -- the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us -- the child who's hungry, the steelworker who's been laid-off, the family who lost the entire life they built together when the storm came to town. When you think like this -- when you choose to broaden your ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers -- it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.”

Got news for you: the "conservative lack of empathy" you theorize is hardly supported by reality. The steelworker who is laid off is more likely to BE a conservative, or at least conservative-leaning independent than liberal. Additionally, studies show when it comes to personal donations of both time and money, conservatives lead liberals by a significant margin. When it comes to responding to a crisis, digging in and helping out, you'll find far more people in that town wiped out by a major storm who identify themselves as conservative than you will find liberals. Where is the conservative "lack of empathy" that leads people to actually get out and put their own money and sweat where there mouth is, as opposed to those who sit back with the opinion it's the government's job? This is typical liberal lies, the narrow minded bullshit that comes from the arrogant belief that if one does not support YOUR way of helping people, then it means they do not want to help at all - as if YOUR way is the ONLY way.

 

[apple0154]

Of COURSE you prefer the theory that demonizes republicans. Democrats are the epitomy of purity, while republicans are incarnations of Satan's own demons. The republicans INTENDED the economy to fail by spending $800 Billion on an unnecessary war. Yet the $1.7 trillion spent by democrats with absolutely nothing to show for it had no detrimental effects on the economy, because it was democrats doing the spending, not republicans.

Blame the republicans is all you have any more. Democratic plans have failed, utterly and totally. But it's still the republican's fault. it's laughable the exuses you people are resorting to in order to continue support for your failed policies. I am sure the billionaires of the world are eager to take down the very economic strata that gives them their billions. It just makes total sense. Who actually LOSES if an economy actually fails in total collapse? Who loses the most if monetary value goes in the tank - a direction we could well be headed right now? Those who have lots of the suddenly valueless money, or those who have little?

The entire economy will not collapse. The crops do not stop growing. Buildings do not fall down. What happens is people generally get poorer and the middle class has a far shorter distance to travel on the road to destitution than the wealthy.

It’s like buying stocks. People wait until the stock falls in price and then they buy. People are like stocks. The wealthy wait until the value of the middle class falls (the money they have runs out) then they buy the middle class by offering low wages. That’s what union busting is all about. That’s why some State governments have outlawed wage negotiations. The State can’t afford to pay the employees so they cut/freeze wages. That makes the State wealthier as now it can afford to pay the same number of employees it couldn’t afford to pay before.

The State didn’t receive any more money but it is wealthier. How did that happen? It happened by making the employees poorer.

The reality of the situation is the wealthy thrive far better on a healthy economy than they do on a weak, struggling, or especially, contracting economy. For that matter, the wealthy thrive far better when there is a healthy, thriving middle class. A healthy thriving middle class can buy more goods and services, and selling more goods and services is what gives the wealthy more wealth. The poor can afford little, can buy little, and that is not good for the wealthy who are deriving their wealth by selling goods and services. Having a large contingent of poor is a drain on any economy, and as a result, diminishes overall wealth - including that of the wealthy. This is true regardless of the tax structure. Even if we were to have a flat tax system where everyone paid the same rates, it is better for the wealthy to have fewer poor and more middle class. The idea that the wealthy want MORE poor is ridiculous in the extreme - a typical liberal lie. So the idea that the republicans, in service to the wealthy, deliberately sabotaged the economy to make more poor and destroy the middle class is nothing less than the outright fatastical LIES of those who wish to demonize the entire concept of conservative fiscal policies.

Yes, the wealthy do benefit from a thriving economy, however, the economy is not thriving due to a number of factors including jobs going overseas so what do the wealthy do to maintain their wealth?

Remember Rummy saying the war with Iraq was an option they could afford? Who were “they”? The guy making $30,000/yr with three kids and struggling to pay for a minimum of medical insurance? The single Mom working two jobs? And remember the time when Bush commented on a woman who said she had three part-time jobs and Bush replied how “American” that was, as if it was something to celebrate?

OTOH, the democrats gain power from having more poor. The poor are their power base, because they make outrageous empty promises to keep the poor voting for them, while sticking them in their maliciously designed traps of government assistance. They keep the poor down, while giving them programs to raise them up. The offer them assistance in housing, food, childcare, cash money just for shits and grins, and them take it away whenever anyone shows the desire to make it on their own.

Sure, being able to afford medical care is just a trap.

As for assistance in housing, food, childcare, cash money….all those programs are necessary because the politicians who are paid for by big money fight against the poor receiving a decent stipend so they begrudgingly offer help when the see people are truly destitute. Yes, “they” are keeping the poor down by not offering decent help, decent being the key word. But the “they” are not the Democrats. The Democrats want to offer medical care. The Democrats support the unions.

So, on one hand we have republicans, supposedly champions of the wealthy. Good, strong economies are good for the wealthy. The wealthy gain more wealth that in a strong economy. Weak economies are bad for the wealthy. They may still make gains in relation to the middle class and poor, but they make less than they would in a strong economy - far less. Less money in the economy as a whole means less money for them. On the other hand, we have democratic party and liberalism, whose primary political power is derived from a base of the poor and struggling. The more poor and struggling there are looking for help from the benevolence of government, the more votes they have in their pockets. Now, if you really want to talk about conspiracy theories, who actually would benefit more from sabotaging the economy?

How much did government programs increase during the trickle down economic philosophy espoused by the Repubs? Did welfare payments substantially increase? Were qualifications eased in order to help people before they lost everything?

A person’s wealth is determined by those with whom they “associate”, do business. Is it cheaper to hire a plumber or carpenter when plumbers and carpenters are in demand or when they’re unemployed and trying to feed their family?

As I wrote in msg #63,

I prefer the theory the GOP deliberately destroyed the economy by starting wars while lowering taxes. They knew jobs were going overseas and people would be facing unemployment but they deliberately drained the funds that should have been available for those affected.

It’s the same philosophy Greenspan espoused when Brooksley Born told him about the impending financial crisis. (http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/) His philosophy was to let people invest in garbage and after enough people lost money they would stop investing and the insidious hand of the marketplace would straighten things out.

In the case of jobs moving overseas and the resulting unemployment the people in government knew the impending situation. How could they not know? It’s their job to know how the economy is doing and plan ahead so the proper thing to do was to not start an unnecessary war and keep the money for the economy which they knew would be changing. The proper thing to do was to keep taxes where they were and add to the funds so as people lost their jobs there would be money for unemployment and education.

Of course, the wealthy and the business owners had a different take on it. The more unemployed, the more available employees and the less they would have to pay them because of the glut. Of course, like the Greenspan plan, if one can call it a plan, it went from an advantage to a disadvantage as the number of unemployed rose too high and sales dropped.

A Republican Economic Sabotage? More like how a Congressman put it to Greenspan during the Congressional hearings.
Congressman: “Your philosophy was faulty, wrong.”
Greenspan: “Yes.”

We’re all tied together, even countries thousands of miles apart. The right wing philosophy of “to hell with everyone else” and “just let things happen” has far-reaching repercussions. The average person does not know the intricacies of the world anymore than they’re all doctors and lawyers.

Regardless of how one interprets the phrase “promote the general welfare” that is seen in the Preamble to the Constitution surely no one can say that refusing to intervene before the financial crisis hit and allowing 45,000 citizens to die each year due to a lack of proper medical care is promoting the general welfare.

If you ask did the Repubs intentionally cause the economic crisis I would say “no”, not to the degree it happened. However, the crisis was the result of their misguided philosophy and as Greenspan told Congress that philosophy was faulty. Wrong.

 

[Alias]

Got news for you: the "conservative lack of empathy" you theorize is hardly supported by reality. The steelworker who is laid off is more likely to BE a conservative, or at least conservative-leaning independent than liberal. Additionally, studies show when it comes to personal donations of both time and money, conservatives lead liberals by a significant margin. When it comes to responding to a crisis, digging in and helping out, you'll find far more people in that town wiped out by a major storm who identify themselves as conservative than you will find liberals. Where is the conservative "lack of empathy" that leads people to actually get out and put their own money and sweat where there mouth is, as opposed to those who sit back with the opinion it's the government's job? This is typical liberal lies, the narrow minded bullshit that comes from the arrogant belief that if one does not support YOUR way of helping people, then it means they do notT want to help at all - as if YOUR way is the ONLY way.

Exactly. Good post. The libs are so ignorant of reality when it comes to this. They don't realize all the churches and the inner city missions and charities are run mostly by evangelical conservative Christians. Libs are just stupid little farts with inflated imaginations and arrogance.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Regardless of how one interprets the phrase “promote the general welfare” that is seen in the Preamble to the Constitution surely no one can say that refusing to intervene before the financial crisis hit and allowing 45,000 citizens to die each year due to a lack of proper medical care is promoting the general welfare.

Not according to the Founding Fathers. We don't need to "interpret" the general welfare clause, it was heavily debated before it was written. You need to read the Federalist Papers to get a better understanding, but "general welfare" certainly did NOT mean what you and your liberal cabal have interpreted it to mean.

James Madison (who wrote the clause) advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

Now, that's the original "interpretation" from the man who wrote the goddamn thing, I think it is pretty valid and clear what he meant. But AFTER the Constitution was ratified, almost immediately after, pinheads began attempting to "re-define" the clause, starting with pinhead Alex Hamilton.