Perch

[Perchoutofwater]

It is a vicious cycle my friend. We leave the people who HAD a job on unemployment and offer nothing to improve the position that they are in and we wind up with more people on welfare. They won't ALL kill themselves. I know that sounds bad but sometimes I wonder what the true right wingers are hoping for.

I am not calling for reeducation of the lifelong welfare recipient. I am just saying that the idea of offering recently productive members of society a chance to return to that status may not be such a bad idea!

 

I don't know what true right wingers are hoping for, because I don't know what a true right winger is. I know what I'm hoping for is fort he federal government to get back to the constitution. And while bushwhacked is right general welfare is mentioned in the preamble, it is clear it is taken out of context, when taken to mean the welfare we see today. All you have to do is look at the writings of Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin. Welfare or wealth redistribution is not specifically enumerated in the constitution and any thing now specifically enumerated in the constitution is not under the power of the federal government. It wasn't until FDR scared the crap out of the Supreme Court that this was even allowed, and it had been shot down by the same supreme court numerous times, prior to the threats of FDR to stack the court.

 

So while I don't know what true right wingers want, I want what the Constitution (amendments) says, which is the since it isn't enumerated in the Constitution then the Federal government is not to provide or have authority over it. It is to be left to the States. I'd like to see welfare done on a more local level, as there would be less graft, and fewer middle men. I'd like to see most of it come from charity. Charities on average for welfare pay out 70 cents on the dollar, where as the government pays out 40 cents on the dollar. That is 30 cents of every dollar that is directed to welfare that is pissed away in administration that wouldn't be by charity. If you get rid of the hard and fast government guidelines, and have people being able to make common sense decisions, several that don't need it would not get welfare. You wouldn't have the life long leaches we have today. So more than likely you could do it locally and through charity for about 1/2 of what it costs to do it through the government.

 

Add to that if the government wasn't handing out money, maybe people would vote for the best ideas instead of who is going to give them the most money.

[H8tank]

.Well unless you want to make them uneducated.... wait that is a republican plan as of 1980

 

and then when I wore my first dress you inbred retard. that is some bullschit, you know it and I don't appreciate it. Stupid gov't employee no skill waste of space, you know it, I know it. If you didn't have your 'job', you couldn't qualify for anything, no skills, stupid, ignorant, a nothing, just like irash.

[tbimm]

and then when I wore my first dress you inbred retard. that is some bullschit, you know it and I don't appreciate it. Stupid gov't employee no skill waste of space, you know it, I know it. If you didn't have your 'job', you couldn't qualify for anything, no skills, stupid, ignorant, a nothing, just like irash.

That wasn't too bad. I think you only blew about a .28 on that one.

Edited May 9, 2009 by tbimm

[tbimm]

I don't know what true right wingers are hoping for, because I don't know what a true right winger is. I know what I'm hoping for is fort he federal government to get back to the constitution. And while bushwhacked is right general welfare is mentioned in the preamble, it is clear it is taken out of context, when taken to mean the welfare we see today. All you have to do is look at the writings of Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin. Welfare or wealth redistribution is not specifically enumerated in the constitution and any thing now specifically enumerated in the constitution is not under the power of the federal government. It wasn't until FDR scared the crap out of the Supreme Court that this was even allowed, and it had been shot down by the same supreme court numerous times, prior to the threats of FDR to stack the court.

 

So while I don't know what true right wingers want, I want what the Constitution (amendments) says, which is the since it isn't enumerated in the Constitution then the Federal government is not to provide or have authority over it. It is to be left to the States. I'd like to see welfare done on a more local level, as there would be less graft, and fewer middle men. I'd like to see most of it come from charity. Charities on average for welfare pay out 70 cents on the dollar, where as the government pays out 40 cents on the dollar. That is 30 cents of every dollar that is directed to welfare that is pissed away in administration that wouldn't be by charity. If you get rid of the hard and fast government guidelines, and have people being able to make common sense decisions, several that don't need it would not get welfare. You wouldn't have the life long leaches we have today. So more than likely you could do it locally and through charity for about 1/2 of what it costs to do it through the government.

 

Add to that if the government wasn't handing out money, maybe people would vote for the best ideas instead of who is going to give them the most money.

How many times do I have to say it?

This is not about the welfare class but instead it is about the unemployed who are receiving unemployment benefits.

There is a difference. There won't be for long if something isn't done as these people will have to apply for welfare in cases where jobs are not available.

[bushwacked]

And while bushwhacked is right general welfare is mentioned in the preamble, it is clear it is taken out of context, when taken to mean the welfare we see today.

 

I don't agree. What's clear, is like many things in the constitution, they left it up to interpretation through the constitutional process. They would have defined the extent if they didn't want it to be "taken out of context."

Edited May 9, 2009 by bushwacked

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't agree. What's clear, is like many things in the constitution, they left it up to interpretation through the constitutional process. They would have defined the extent if they didn't want it to be "taken out of context."

It's the same sort of "obscure clarity" as "well-regulated militia".

[AtomicCEO]

It's the same sort of "obscure clarity" as "well-regulated militia".

 

those things are necessary to the security of a free nation. Hell look around. Where would we be without ours?

[Yukon Cornelius]

and then when I wore my first dress you inbred retard. that is some bullschit, you know it and I don't appreciate it. Stupid gov't employee no skill waste of space, you know it, I know it. If you didn't have your 'job', you couldn't qualify for anything, no skills, stupid, ignorant, a nothing, just like irash.

 

the stupid is strong in this one.

[bushwacked]

It's the same sort of "obscure clarity" as "well-regulated militia".

 

Yea, I'm pretty sure our forefathers knew what they were doing when they intentionally forecasted a thousands shades of gray on govt. assistance. Just like they intentionally blurred the lines on everyone having the right to any kind of weaponry 200+ years ago.

 

Not that it will ever make for a perfect scenario, but If you don't like the way it's being carried out, within the purposeful leeway of the constitution, run for office or vote someone else in. Any Representative is still limited, to a rather large extent, by the Code of Hammurabi.

Edited May 10, 2009 by bushwacked

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't agree. What's clear, is like many things in the constitution, they left it up to interpretation through the constitutional process. They would have defined the extent if they didn't want it to be "taken out of context."

 

 

It's the same sort of "obscure clarity" as "well-regulated militia".

 

 

Founding fathers on welfare:

 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

 

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

-Thomas Jefferson

 

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

 

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

 

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-James Madison

 

Founding Fathers on the RIGHT to bear arms:

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither

inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and

better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man

may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

 

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self

defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

 

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the

people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than

99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very

atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,

we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

 

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

 

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

 

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,

Debates, 425-426)

 

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and

include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

 

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms."

 

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties

of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."

(Federalist Paper #29)

 

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

 

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster

 

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code

 

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee

 

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).

 

To bad people no longer listen to Jefferson:

 

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322

Edited May 10, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[bushwacked]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

 

 

So, you agree with Madison and myself? If not, I fail to see the gotcha moment you seem to be going for.

[Perchoutofwater]

So, you agree with Madison and myself? If not, I fail to see the gotcha moment you seem to be going for.

 

Yes, I agree with Madison:

 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

[bushwacked]

Yes, I agree with Madison:

 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

 

Madison was talking about about the French Refugees from the Haitian Revolution there Cowboy.....the actual quote from a rep was as follows:

 

"Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

 

This other part, specific to the US of A, was accurate though......

 

" With respect to the two words ‘general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them."

[whomper]

I know.

 

 

I know.

 

 

Aint no sunshine when shes gone

[Clubfoothead]

James Madison.

 

The original flip-flopper.

[Big John]

Aint no sunshine when shes gone

Leave skylive5 out of this.

[bpwallace49]

To bad people no longer listen to Jefferson:

 

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

HELLO Patriot Act!

 

Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government

I wish this was applied to Iraq!

 

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

This is a good idea Perch! Arent you AGAINST the govt supporting continuing education? Jefferson would be ashamed . .

 

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Sounds kinda anti-establishment with buisnesses huh?

 

An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.

The very definition of the huddle . . . God Bless America!

 

 

 

Fixed.

 

It also needs to be noted that Jefferson owned slaves (although he did speak out against it once he hooked up with a slave he owned), was in favor of resettling and "reeducating) native americans in order to obtain their land and stated that the average life of ANY constitution should ONLY be 19 years.

 

He was also an outspoken critic of women's sufferage and lived in a time when the only people that could vote and have "rights" were white, wealthy landowners . . .

 

Perch the point is that MANY of our founding fathers have contradictory quotes and their intentions on MANY issues have to been seen through the lens of their situations at the time. It is practically impossible to directly apply intent of the founding fathers to modern day situations, which is why we have a judicial system that helps to interpret laws made by our legislative bodies.

 

I alos like the fact that he was one of the only Presidenst to have never vetoed a bill from Congress. He didnt consider himself above the duly elected representatives of the people. If only MORE presidents followed that trend . . .

[bushwacked]

I alos like the fact that he was one of the only Presidenst to have never vetoed a bill from Congress. He didnt consider himself above the duly elected representatives of the people. If only MORE presidents followed that trend . . .

 

I would never vote for a president that committed himself to signing every bill out of congress. There is nothing noble about that and it flies in the face of the checks and balances installed in the process.

Edited May 10, 2009 by bushwacked

[bpwallace49]

I would never vote for a president that committed himself to signing every bill out of congress. There is nothing noble about that and it flies in the face of the checks and balances installed in the process.

 

He never campaigned to do that, nor I doubt that was his orginal intent. Again, that principle is just another example of how something done in the past is not necessarily useful today.

 

Keep in mind that in those days the LOSER of the Presidentrial election was the VICE President! It seemed that back then there was a greater sense of doing whats best for America, not what is best for themselves. More of an idealistic view of what "public service" could be/should be.

 

Last point is the differences between the political parties was very slim. The prez and the reps were more in lockstep on most issues.

[Perchoutofwater]

bpwallace, in response to your post I offer the folowing:

 

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

I can see how you would use this to point out how questionable the Patriot Act is, and I don't disagree. I find many aspects of the Patriot Act objectionable. Having said that, I do believe that different standards should be applied for people that are visiting our country and for citizens. I do not believe aliens legal or illegal have the same protections under the Constitution as citizens. I also believe this quote could be applied to many other pieces of legislation including the progressive tax system, as the majority keeps voting to raise the taxes on the minority but not the populace as a whole.

 

Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government

I disagree with this, as I think most would. If not for conquest their would not by a United States of America. We conqured the native americans, and we conquered the Spanish. I also disagree with your assertion that war in Iraq is about conquest, as I don't think anyone is considering annexation of Iraq as the 51st state.

 

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

I agree educated electorate is better for the country than an uneducated electorate. I however do not agree that this falls under the federal governemnts purview. It is also questionbable if students today are getting education or endoctrination. I think education is something better left to the states, and would prefer it to be more local than that. I do not see this as being inconsistent with Jefferson's views.

 

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

I don't know that this is anti-establishment or anti-business. I think it is in support fo the rule of law, and that nobody or no entity is above it. I wish we would do a better job of enforcing our laws. Had we enforced the regulation in place, and had Frank, Dodd, and Obama provided the oversight they were supposed to instead of taking hugh campaign contributions from Freddie, Fannie and AIG, there is a good chance we wouldn't have the problems we do today with the economy.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[westvirginia]

Taken to it's logical conclusion, the utopia you dream of would have maybe 5% of the people reasonably well off while everyone else was in poverty. Those in poverty would then destroy the 5%. Your failure to understand what constitutes a society (and the benefits that accrue to all, not just "welfare recipients") is willful.

 

Yeah, because your 5%/95% is what happened during the first 150 years of the republic, isn't it?

 

You're right, it is willful on my part. I don't define society as haves/have nots the way you do. And even if I did, the haves (by and large) aren't in the position their in because they "won life's lottery". In fact, it's my contention that making people stand or fall on their own would accrue more benefits to society than giving them unearned plunder.

 

BTW, you still haven't answered my question. By what moral right do you take from me to give to another? Just because the majority wants it doesn't make it right. I can point to quite a few genocides to prove that one.

 

Not only is promoting the general welfare of our society specifically mentioned in the preamble of the constitution; as Ursa points out, it's a necessity for long term survival of any society.

 

 

Madison was talking about about the French Refugees from the Haitian Revolution there Cowboy.....the actual quote from a rep was as follows:

 

"Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

 

This other part, specific to the US of A, was accurate though......

 

" With respect to the two words 'general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them."

 

You're being such a slow that you've proven perch's point without even realizing it. Like Madison said, "he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

 

It doesn't matter to whom the reference was intended - Madison CLEARLY saw the constitution in contravention to spending "on objects of benevolence".

[bpwallace49]

Perch I agree with you on MANY subjects. I OBJECT with your use of reasoning, sources and justification for some of your end results.

 

Jefferson (just like most quotes from politicians) has MANY contradictions between his words and his actions. It is always easy to "cherry pick" quotes that happen to support your current stance.

 

The Patriot Act is ripe for abuse, and has already violated the constitutionally protected rights on American citizens. We have already started sliding down that slippery slope by the politics of fear and knee-jerk legislation following 9-11. (failing to learn from the same mistakes FDR made by establishing the relocation camps for Japanese Americans in WWII).

 

Speaking as someone that has children, I do not agree with having different educational standards for different states. How on earth would that work for standardized testing for higher education, or even simple accrediation methology for college ratings? I get the impression that you want to abolish the federal govt entirely, except for the military. That kind of independent state-ism didnt work well at the beginning of our nation (hell we even fought a civil war over it!!) and I have severe doubts it would work in the new economies of globalization. I cannot think of how de-evolving all our laws to throw it back to state decree would work. I would love to hear how you think it WOULD work . . seriously.

 

Perch, you seem to love bashing Obama for well . . . everything, while ignoring or waxing nostalgic about and republicans in recent history. Your discourse on most of these subjects has been rational, and well-thought out. Why cant you apply that critical thought to the obvious and glaring missteps by BOTH political parties? You slam Obama for a campaign contribution, yet gloss over the Bush family ties with the Saudi royal family.

 

Perch, are you anti-illegal immigration like the rest of the republican platform? If so, have you ever OR used a subcontrator, that has used illegal immigrants? Do you perform full social security card backround checks on ALL employees?

[Ursa Majoris]

Yeah, because your 5%/95% is what happened during the first 150 years of the republic, isn't it?

Yes, up to a point. Total laissez-faire leads to wealth concentration, which is just as dangerous as wealth redistribution. I point you to world history to back up this point.

 

BTW, you still haven't answered my question. By what moral right do you take from me to give to another? Just because the majority wants it doesn't make it right. I can point to quite a few genocides to prove that one.

You think you get nothing back? You really think the government confiscates your money with the sole intention of giving it to some welfare ho to spend on bling?

[Azazello1313]

It is a vicious cycle my friend. We leave the people who HAD a job on unemployment and offer nothing to improve the position that they are in and we wind up with more people on welfare. They won't ALL kill themselves. I know that sounds bad but sometimes I wonder what the true right wingers are hoping for.

 

so it's either the government tit or suicide, huh? if you're not expanding one, you're hoping for the other?

[TimC]

Perch in 2012!!

 

He pwnd u.