Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Someone brought that up in a forum recently, might have been here, might have been the other place. They said the founders had some debate about it and I guess that continues.
I am not sure that the story "Not Yours To Give" is true but the subject matter comes into play when you want to talk about what general welfare means. General welfare means all the people, wouldn't you think ? The word "welfare" has come to mean a government handout to the poor, deserving or not, coming from tax money. However there is much doubt that the founders thought of it that way. It is more likely that they meant to promote trade, and somewhat regulate it for the common good, or general welfare which means just about the same thing. You can argue semantics that it is different and I will capitulate that the two, while not identical, are very similar.
The people who wrote those words were not that far removed from times when beggars would approach buggies, stagecoaches or whatever and say "Alms for the poor". The government did not do the giving. What changed ?
What do you think general welfare means ? I think it means the passing of laws so that Grandma doesn't have to carry a shotgun to the market to get apples for her pie. And tort laws for those who get cheated by another. Of course on the latter they have probably gone too far, but still you cannot let the torts go unadjusted. So that means both civil and criminal courts, both regulated by the Constitution and of course the Bill Of Rights. All laws are supposed to be pursuant to enforcing those documents, nothing else.
It has been years since I have read the Constitution but I am pretty sure I got the gist of it better than those who only read the parts that support their position. Like there are laws against murder for example and the anti-abortion crowd says that applies to before you were born. While that may be true, and abortion really is murder, who says ? They say Trump says he is going to overturn that, the President has no such power. He needs a civics class, but then so does Obama.
It is time for We The People to become the People again. what does the general welfare actually mean ? For one, people used to live very differently than today and there was not much devaluation of the currency. They were able to save up for their retirement. Try that today, you simply cannot do it. So there is social security and I think FDR was the one that started that. And it was a good idea, assuming he was an educated Man, and I mean with smarts, not like the SJW the colleges push out these days, he knew his policies would result in a devaluation of the currency, which is improperly referred to as inflation. As such he knew that saving for one's own future simply would not work.
But social security, no matter what their website says, is not mandatory. You get out benefits based on what you paid in. It is not a bank account though, you are paid by the current people paying in. In that way it is like a Ponzi scheme and it actually works as long as there is a bigger and bigger pool of people paying in. So in a way, social security was for the general welfare, common good. But it is paid into by the people who collect it. A government run system by which people could abate the "inflation" caused by the government. When they started giving it to people who never paid in, that is a different story.
Welfare on the other hand has supported generations of people who never even thought of working. As long as you have kids you can get a check, a food card (grub stub as someone called it) and section eight housing. In the 1800s you would have starved to death. Even in the early 1900s, before FDR people starved. And froze. That is when the federal government was doing its job and nothing more.
Now, although they cut it back, they were giving social security to people for alcoholism, drug addiction, depression and all kinds of shit, even though they had never paid into it. Do you think that's right ?
I read about the premise that the Constitution applies even to those who are not Citizens and I support an amendment to say that it only applies to Citizens. Is that racist ? I am Slovak, Polack and German origin and I want this to apply to them as well. Not just the Mexicans and Arabs or whoever who want to kill us. Give them nothing and don't even let them in here. Let them in YOUR house if you want.
The premise that Constitutional rights apply to anyone who sets foot on US soil is ridiculous. Illegal aliens have second amendment rights ? Are you kidding me ?
General welfare means all the People, not just the needy. And the statue of liberty has to go. Keep your huddled masses. Whoever wrote that inscription on there should have been shot. Wanna know what I think it should have said ?
"SEND US YOUR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITY, STRONG, SMART AND FAST PEOPLE WHO WILL INNOVATE AND MAKE THIS COUNTRY GREAT".
And indeed, in latter years I studied some about the greatest innovators in the US and found that many of them were off the boat and even more were first generation born here. Why ?
For one the market was rich. Of that there is no doubt. Another thing is our extreme intellectual property laws, even back then. Those immigrant went on to become Citizens and as such, IMO, guarded by our Constitution, but not until then.
If an illegal immigrant came here, broke into Pfizer labs with a team of warriors and invented a cure for cancer, would you honor his patent ? He wants $1,000 per dose when it only costs $1 to make.
You know, this shit is not simple. It is not cut and dry. In a writing of mine many years ago I put forth that if Jesus came back and has extreme powers, that of a god. I mean more than Q with this "change the gravitational constant of the universe" thing. (Star Trek TNG reference)
So Jesus is sitting there and asks "What would you have me do ?".
If I for example, were omnipotent, what would you have me do ? Some will say kill all the Muslims, some will say kill all the Jews, some will say kill all the Russians, some will say kill all the republicans. But I bet everything out of people's mouths would start with "Kill all the_____".
And that should somehow make it all better so we should use the force of the US government to do it. Right ?
Right ?
People do not even know what they're asking for, and in some cases even what they want. You want to take care of the poor figure out why they are poor.
One person can do the work of ten now and we are left with the other nine to take care of somehow. Believe me, it is not China that wrecked the US economy, do you hear Germany bitching about China ? Nope, because they know how it is. Most jobs there are not enough to live separately, you need roomies or family, or you rent a shoebox. The Germans call it McJobs.
I am not really advocating Ludditism, but it is something to consider. Here, Amish built houses and furniture command high prices. People who can afford it sometimes pay it. the electronics engineers still working in this country are doing mostly custom work, not mass production.
Is THAT the fault of government ? Is the fact that when I went to school I already knew how to read, basic math and another few things, yet now teachers say that kids come in there not even knowing their colors or basic shapes like triangle, square and so forth, the fault of the government ?
It is if you consider three generations of illiterate h_____ or n_____ who should have starved to death. And if they had, the push for mass production would not have worked so well because the market would not exist. So in the end they did not do well when it comes to this.
Keynes was an asshole. Borrow and spend is stupid. And FDR was the worst President we ever had because he enhanced the debt, and "rationalized" it. A chicken in every pot. You bitch about Trump using phrases like that and ignore what was done to use before we were even born. That eventually turned us from a nation of producers into consumers.
Liberal poison has infected the whole world and look at the results. EVERY nation is in debt. To whom ? Some to each other of course, but that does not answer the question. We have spent more money than we had, it is that simple. Liberals don't give a fuck and just put that debt on the next generation. Well WE ARE that generation because I doubt this is sustainable for another 20 years. Oops, a generation is only 16 years now eh ?
If ten more people would have died in 1945, how many less people would be here draining the system ? If you feed 2 starving people in Africa then you get 12. Feed them and then you get 144. Feed them and you get 1,728. Feed them and you get more, use a calculator to find out.
We have zero political parties in this country with a brain. The democrats gave us Trump. But the republicans are against abortion but don't want to feed the poor that this creates, what do they want more criminals ? The democrats do not realize that the working will find ways to keep them from giving theirs to the people who SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN because their "parents" should have starved to death decades ago.
General welfare means everyone, not just the poor. You want to give out welfare checks, give them to everyone. People making fifty grand a year like "Oh this comes in handy, I'll buy my kids more Christmas presents". Actually that would stimulate the economy. You want defense against foreign attackers ? (not that we have that) Then that means defending EVERYONE. THAT IS WHAT COMMON MEANS.
But it is not the job of government to stimulate anything. If you believe that "promoting the general welfare" means that then chime in and prove your case. And I am not one of these assholes who want cites and quotes, give it up in your own words. I want real argument about this, though I do encourage those who participate to read "Not Yours To Give".
T^T
< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 12/12/2016 4:00:14 PM >
|
To Provide For The General Welfare - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread