Promote the general welfare

Sammy Jankis

Was it me?
You libertarian fuckhounds always get all bent out of shape about socialists using the general welfare clause to promote socialism... And i agree with you. It doesn't mean socialism. But i believe it does mean keeping employment markets inside a certain parameter such that people can actually survive.

I ask you libertarian fuckhounds, does it mean ANYTHING AT ALL to you?
 
Article I Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 1:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 2:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 3:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the
subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 4:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix
the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 5:

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;

Clause 6:

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 7:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 8:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 9:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 10:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 11:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 12:

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 13:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

Clause 14:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 15:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 16:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 17:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

It's not a clause, but a statement of purpose for the 17 clauses that follow.
 
You libertarian fuckhounds always get all bent out of shape about socialists using the general welfare clause to promote socialism... And i agree with you. It doesn't mean socialism. But i believe it does mean keeping employment markets inside a certain parameter such that people can actually survive.

I ask you libertarian fuckhounds, does it mean ANYTHING AT ALL to you?

It does NOT mean keeping employment markets inside a certain blah blah blah. Promoting the general welfare means that the government must allow the private individual the opportunity to contract and benefit financially from his/her own devices. It's not the gov's job to ensure you can have a job.
 
It does NOT mean keeping employment markets inside a certain blah blah blah. Promoting the general welfare means that the government must allow the private individual the opportunity to contract and benefit financially from his/her own devices. It's not the gov's job to ensure you can have a job.

It sounds like you want more specific welfare rather than general.

It is also not the governments job to make sure the trade, immigration and tariff polices maximize profit for corporations either.

The government has the power to implment trade policy, of any kind, not just the fascist shit you like.


Protectionism or trade partner restrictions are not unconstitutional, mr. constitution. you gonna shoot me now?
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you want more specific welfare rather than general.

The government has the power to implment trade policy, of any kind, not just the fascist shit you like.

identify and explain how an individuals ability to freely contract and conduct his/her own business is fascist?

jiggley.gif
 
It is also not the governments job to make sure the trade, immigration and tariff polices maximize profit for corporations either.



Protectionism or trade partner restrictions are not unconstitutional
 
Explain to me how a belief that government must always conduct trade relations to maximize corporate profit instead of domestic standard of living isnt?

herein lies your error of logic. governments shouldn't conduct trade relations. They should set up regs and policies to allow commercial transaction, both directions, so that they are equal opportunities for all sides. Maximizing corporate profits was never the intention of the constitution and both sides have stretched those limits beyond recognition.
 
herein lies your error of logic. governments shouldn't conduct trade relations.
But they do, constitutionally. and they should. Because pure markets are never free and are always inside a political context, with gaming from both sides.

your solution is the final move of the elites against the people, destroying any protections they have from the abuses of the central planning and social engineering of multianational corporations and "public private parnterships".

Monopoly cartels, central planning, dehumanization, totalitarianism, all of these are just as possible inside corporate culture, moreso even as they are in "government". it makes no difference if you call the central planning oligarchy, "congress", or "board of directors", or if you call the primary actors "ceos" or "tsars".
They should set up regs and policies to allow commercial transaction, both directions, so that they are equal opportunities for all sides. Maximizing corporate profits was never the intention of the constitution and both sides have stretched those limits beyond recognition.


They should limit trading partners with dictator/totalitarian nations, so as not to incentivize defacto human slavery.

We should protect key industries, and consciously keep key skills in the country instead of farming them out to other countries. Sorry. It only makes sense.

your way is the fall of the republic.
 
Your image of the small entrepeneur trying to make it is becoming an impossibility with the takeover of the for fortune 500 fascist regime.
 
You know that guy who flew a plane into the building, the programmer who was fed up with one of the big IT consulting companies? He was called a communist. He was not a communist. he was pissed because the company and irs were fucking with him in every way possible to not deny him his IC corp to corp status. Making him pay all these taxes. it's that company just destroying a small contractor just because they fucking can. And because he criticized big business he is a communist? Hell no. Just notice the spin on things. And consider the truth.
 
Well, the fun thing about libertarian fuckhounds is they can be baited into action.


Can we get a libertarian fuckhound graphic made please?
 
You libertarian fuckhounds always get all bent out of shape about socialists using the general welfare clause to promote socialism... And i agree with you. It doesn't mean socialism. But i believe it does mean keeping employment markets inside a certain parameter such that people can actually survive.

I ask you libertarian fuckhounds, does it mean ANYTHING AT ALL to you?

Well, you can't blame Libertarians. They haven't been in power for almost 200 years.
 
Back
Top