SmarterthanYou
rebel
Sure, people have a right to ownership. They also have an obligation to help others.
can you cite where I'm legally obligated to help others?
Sure, people have a right to ownership. They also have an obligation to help others.
Not all of them have "bad" homes apple...just non incentivised ones...but yeah, throw drugs into it and it's another entire layer of dysfunction.
Welfare is not good, it's addictive. Welfare was our nations early public employee plan...now those jobs are permanent, pay more are unionized and have more security then many of their private counter parts and public welfare is now unrelated to work...bad.
Government should have no right to force one man to be anothers keeper
...what we have is government playing the role of the church and they suck at it.
"Not all of them have "bad" homes apple...just non incentivised ones."
Exactly, but rather than the government helping those kids they make it a jump-through-the-hoops program. Many drop out of school, for whatever reason. They will never have a decent life unless they get an education. Where is the program to offer them an education? A free education because, obviously, being on welfare they don't have any money.
We can't expect those who start out in life with strikes against them to view life the same way as a privileged person. Without an education they'll never get anywhere regardless of how much they work (in most cases). That's why they remain on welfare. They don't see any way out.
Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?
Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?
Government should be for the benefit of people. All people.
Well who does? Fact is, taxation is at historic lows. If we wish to keep it that way we need to give up on some spending. What are you willing to cut spending on? Defense? Social Security? Infrastructure? What program or service near and dear to you are you willing to cut back on or do with out?
Wise words.They stay on welfare 'cause it's easy. They don't "see" a way out because they have not learned by "example" growing up, that they got nothing coming except that which they are willing to work for. Dignity is a motivator; dignity is earned; without dignity people have no inner drive. Lacking dignity people can become very self destructive and selfish.
can you cite where I'm legally obligated to help others?
Look, that's not what I'm getting at. Riding waste and corruption from the system is important and we all want that but it won't solve the problem.How about the special medical insurance and retirement for the senate? Let them draw social security like their constituents. That would at least prod them into being more careful with that money.
Defense spending could be cut.
How about corporate welfare? There are millions wasted there that could be cut.
We spend $25 billion maintaining unused or abandoned federal properties. Sell the damned things. In addition to the income from the sale, it would save us a bundle.
We are spending $2.6 million of our tax dollars to train chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. I am betting that program could be cut. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47976
A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.
Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.
The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.
The idea that budget cuts will cause problems is just a ploy used by those who have a stake in the game. Don't fall for it, Mott.
Time to put this crap out of its misery. WE THE PEOPLE are no more the 'government' than charles manson is jesus christ. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. That means that we elect people to represent us in government, which hardly ever works out anyway.I can cite where the government is obliged to help others and considering we are the government (democracy) then it follows we are all responsible.
'general welfare' is not a clause to ensure every individual has a lifetime job, home, pension, or any other entitlement. You should humbly apologize for your misconstrued misconstruction.Promote the general welfare. When one is charged with promoting a person's general welfare what does it mean?
Should one argue it means the general welfare of the country as opposed to the general welfare of individual citizens I'd like to know the difference? The citizens are the country. Citizens in poverty means part of the country is in poverty. Surely having citizens suffering from a lack of basic food and shelter and health care is not beneficial to the general welfare of a country.
created and maintained by FDR and the 'new deal'.Today, we have limits on certain crops to ensure prices remain high. Does anyone believe the Founding Fathers had that in mind?
there wasn't, and isn't. People can get an education to become a doctor and provide that care while getting paid for their services. capitalism at its finest. the government has no authority to mandate any care at all.Today, we have medications and procedures to cure all types of ailments. When people say medical care was not included in the Constitution what care are they talking about? What care was available to be mentioned?
The founding fathers knew this could happen in a central government that didn't stay within the bounds of the powers authorized them. Because the feds went outside those powers, we now have the problems you complain about and want government to fix. Homelessness, poverty, hunger....these are all a result of federal manipulation of the markets. That is most certainly not what the founders wanted.The Founding Fathers' intentions. They couldn't be specific about things they knew nothing about such as the advances in medicine or the industrial revolution to the point where food production soared. Does anyone believe the Founding Fathers' had any idea more food would be produced than necessary and then quotas placed on that food which has resulted in some going hungry?
appeal to emotionIs there anyone here who believes the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty mean deliberately lessening food production so others go hungry?
appeal to emotionIs there anyone here who believes the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty encompass watching others suffer and, in some cases, die when medical care is available?
They stay on welfare 'cause it's easy. They don't "see" a way out because they have not learned by "example" growing up, that they got nothing coming except that which they are willing to work for. Dignity is a motivator; dignity is earned; without dignity people have no inner drive. Lacking dignity people can become very self destructive and selfish.
Look, that's not what I'm getting at. Riding waste and corruption from the system is important and we all want that but it won't solve the problem.
We, as a people, either need to tighten our belts and make some tough decisions about cutting popular programs or we will need to raise taxes. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resources/myths_facts.html
"Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time."
"AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years."
"The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population."
"Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget."
Granted, the study is a few years old. But the popular myths concerning welfare are wide spread.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
From that link you can see:
"Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6
Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3"
So just over 80% of those receiving AFDC are on it for less than 5 years.
So about 50% of families recieve it for longer than 36 mos. Likewise we are on the 6th generation of families that have grown up on welfare and stayed on welfare. These stats do not account for women who return to welfare after a short time off... Welfare is a way of life for generations. That some are able to use it as a stop-gap and manage to get away from it for good is not the norm, but always a good thing.
Ask any social worker who works with welfare recipients and I guarentee that they'd agree with my viewpoint.
I do not see welfare recipients as bad people...I see welfare as a bad system.
Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?
Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?
Government should be for the benefit of people. All people.
Time to put this crap out of its misery. WE THE PEOPLE are no more the 'government' than charles manson is jesus christ. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. That means that we elect people to represent us in government, which hardly ever works out anyway.
'general welfare' is not a clause to ensure every individual has a lifetime job, home, pension, or any other entitlement. You should humbly apologize for your misconstrued misconstruction.
there wasn't, and isn't. People can get an education to become a doctor and provide that care while getting paid for their services. capitalism at its finest. the government has no authority to mandate any care at all.
appeal to emotion
Strawman argument.
There is no draft.
Failure
![]()
Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?
Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?
but WE are not the government.Regardless, we are ultimately responsible.
general welfare of the united states, not united states citizens. key point you're ignoring.Time to consult your dictionary. When responsible for the welfare of anything it means the well-being.
can you cite to any piece of historical documentation that points to 'general welfare' as being authority for the government to provide anything for an individual citizen?Of course the government has the authority. That is it's obligation, to promote the general welfare. That is one of the "fundamental purposes and guiding principles" of the Constitution. It is so written.
That doesn't change the fact a draft can be implemented at any time.