The Myth of the Benevolent Left

This thread has some excellent comments over at disinfo.com - none positive.
One person threatens to unfollow them because they posted it, pretty funny.
One thing is for sure - the opening post is utter crap and anyone with a brain can see it for what it is.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

When was Jesus really a socialist? Why cause He didn't have a job or quit it and became a traveling evangelist? Many for get, most forget that Jesus got sick of the crowds that followed Him around for food. Sent them away. Said "you only follow me for the food". Socialist government is never going to do that.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

"provide for the general Welfare of the United States; ".

Definition time:

: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or things in a group : involving or including many or most people

www.merriam-webster.com...

: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

www.merriam-webster.com...

Put them together, and what do we get ?

General welfare of the STATE, not the people.

As it MEANS a state where EVERYONE benefits.

It doesn't mean rob from the rich, and give to the poor so they can go out, and buy more stuff.

That is the antithesis of what the phrase means.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

So basically, you ARE the type of leftist the OP is about. You assume that since you have a government who tells you it is happening that anyone who is poor and homeless is there by choice because you washed your hands of it ... it's the government's responsibility, but you tell yourself you are more compassionate than others because you live in a country with a government that purports to "care," and yet, it is self-evident that your poor are still with you, and you are very content to pass on by the other side of the road.

The poor will be with you always. And the guy the good Samaritan helped was a guy beaten and rob probably by a shiftless bunch of homeless drug attics.

a reply to: stargatetravels

This thread has some excellent comments over at disinfo.com - none positive.
One person threatens to unfollow them because they posted it, pretty funny.
One thing is for sure - the opening post is utter crap and anyone with a brain can see it for what it is.

Utter crap. Such benevolence and a sure sign of someone with a brain.

But wow you're right. I was not aware this would be thrown on another website.

Granted, it is ATS's content, and they can do what they want with it, but they'll get no more out of me.

I officially quit. And I doth my hat to my fellows.

Farewell!

originally posted by: neo96
[
Clearly some people fail at reading comprehension.

Simply put.

I absolutely agree with you.

Utterly and completely.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Star for you!

a reply to: Gryphon66

So tell me there G.

When this nation is over 18 trillion dollars in DEBT.

With over half of it's citizens on welfare programs of some sort or another.

And remember the clause you quoted SPECIFICALLY.

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Pay attention to that first part.

To pay DEBTS.

General welfare doesn't mean create a bunch of half assed programs that have become a detriment to the state.

So yeah some people really have bad reading comprehension.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.

also Helvering v. Davis, South Dakota v. Dole all of which have held that Congress does indeed have the right to utilize tax revenues for the good of the people or the general welfare. (Source)

So ... who shall we listen to?

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and The Supreme Court ...

or Merriam-Webster in faulty and stilted usage?

Now that's a head-scratcher ... LOL.

a reply to: neo96

Wasn't it VP Cheney that claimed that deficits don't matter? Or was that Mr. Reagan? Owner and founder of our modern debts.

For the record, I'd love to see us start paying down our debt ... 65% of which we owe to ourselves, eh? (Forbes)

Another head-scratcher that one ... only bureaucrats huh?

Thankfully, your understanding of the meaning of the Constitution's twice repeated phrasing regarding the General Welfare is quite poor as you seem to be repeatedly observing ... as Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the Supreme Court disagree with you over the course of 220 and more years ...

Don't be hard on yourself though ... chin up.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am so glad you brought up Hellvring V Davis.

That ruling is where the Scotus said people have NO RIGHT to social security.

Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.

There is NO RIGHT to SS.

The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wasn't it VP Cheney that claimed that deficits don't matter? Or was that Mr. Reagan? Owner and founder of our modern debts.

So your 'rebutt' is DIck Cheney.

Ok I am moving on to something with more substance.

If we relate your OP to the immigration problem in the EU, are you suggesting that EU citizens who want to help genuine refugees are not really helping unless they actually take them into their own homes , provide money to the refugee camps or go there?

I am against mass migration but not against genuine refugees fleeing Syria although I see your point about paying lip service by not actually going out of my way or daily routine to help this group of people.

I remember an argument on dontstayin.com 9 years ago when Madeline McCann went missing in Portugal. There was this vulgar, nauseating and over the top outpouring of concern and grief on the thread. One of the posters asked them all "If you are genuinely that concerned and as passionate as you are on this thread then why are you not in Portugal helping to look for her with the search groups?

Of course he was attacked by many posters but I thought he made a valid point. They were paying lip service.

a reply to: neo96

I fail to see where the Supreme Court decision states: "people have NO RIGHT to social security"

Don't quote the Cato Institute ... quote the Decision in Helvering that states that "people have no right to social security."

Go ahead.

If you can't quote that you're blatantly misrepresenting the facts.

And you can't quote that.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wasn't it VP Cheney that claimed that deficits don't matter? Or was that Mr. Reagan? Owner and founder of our modern debts.

So your 'rebutt' is DIck Cheney.

Ok I am moving on to something with more substance.

I don't blame you ... you've demonstrated your comments about reading comprehension quite clearly.

I.e. you ignore 90% of responses, or can't understand them, or ... I have no idea. You keep saying it's reading comp.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just exactly what was 'misrepresented' eh ?

The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. Section 807 (a). There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807 (c).

www.socialsecurity.gov...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just exactly what was 'misrepresented' eh ?

The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. Section 807 (a). There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807 (c).

www.socialsecurity.gov...

Right ... now show us where the decision states:

"people have NO RIGHT to social security"

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: stargatetravels

This thread has some excellent comments over at disinfo.com - none positive.
One person threatens to unfollow them because they posted it, pretty funny.
One thing is for sure - the opening post is utter crap and anyone with a brain can see it for what it is.

Utter crap. Such benevolence and a sure sign of someone with a brain.

But wow you're right. I was not aware this would be thrown on another website.

Granted, it is ATS's content, and they can do what they want with it, but they'll get no more out of me.

I officially quit. And I doth my hat to my fellows.

Farewell!

Yeah, that's pretty crappy, no attribution even.

Bad form at best.

a reply to: TechniXcality

So the Koch brothers, Republicans, right wing... Give millions and billions to compel Congress to advocate for alternative energy?

Most soldiers I know are also Republican and right wing, since for some reason the right think they own patriotism and fighting for their country... Well they do certainly fight and fight and fight for no other reason but greed, money, oil.... Not that they are aware of this.

I'd like to walk in your land of unicorns, sir.

It sounds rather nice to be so unaware.

So just "caring" about the hungry, tweeting about the hungry is just as good as feeding the hungry.

Maybe the hungry can dine on such caring thoughts, and feast on benevolent tweets and posts.