It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you really want a Constitutional Government?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   


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


i and many other people have a different take on what that means for some of us that means congress was given the power to tax to fund the government hence the terminology general welfare

the definition as follows:

applying as a general rule in general terms
affecting the entire body

the defintion as follows:

benefit something that promotes the well being

hence the term general welfare means the general well being of the government to be funded in order to do as what is prescribed in the constitution.

that said government can not function without the funds needed to run that said government.


and please general welfare does not mean rob from the rich and give to the poor that is what it has never meant to be but that is what it became.

if people did truly follow the principles set forth in the us constitution minority rights are protected and property rights are protected hence you can not take away property (money) and give it to someone who doesn't have any and give it to a majority.

if people truly understood and grasped whats in the us constitution they can see those actions are forbidden since this is a constitutional republic and agian the minority rights are protected in a number of ways from mob rule.

thems the brakes this country was never meant to be a democracy or mob rule.

and destroying one class to promote the well being of another class goes entirely against the general welfare of the state.
edit on 2-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It's not a matter of taking from the rich to give to the poor. Everyone pays into the system -- from the richest to the poorest. One of the purposes of the government is the protection and welfare of its citizens -- be that defense of the country or social programs.

We are already living in a nation split by social stratification. The haves and the have nots. To do away with the bare safety net that these social programs offer will only serve to deepen this chasm. To think that doing away with these programs will magically result in a a Utopian society where the economy is great, everyone gets a decent meal and no one is without a roof over their head is absurd.

The very least that Congress can do is to support its citizens with at least a minimal amount of humanitarian care.
edit on 5/2/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
If I recall correctly, former president GWB once said along the line of:




"It's just a piece of paper."


And that's my feeling, too. There are TOO many interpretations and amendments to the US Constitution. Surely, there would be something much simpler to understand.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


ah but does everyone pay evenly in to that system? the anwer is a resounding no

big corporations dont and those so called poor people dont.

by the constitutions own words taxes must be uniform throughout the entire country.

and then again one half finances the other half.

my problems it that it creates dependency why do anything at all when people can sit back and get paid for nothing.

the humane thing to do is to give people a future that is better and yet all those programs have done is give people a today no better than a yesterday and a tomorrow no better than any today..

not very humane i think.
edit on 2-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


First of all, it is virtually impossible to expect our poorest citizens (there is no such thing as "so-called poor" -- either you're poor or your not) to carry the same tax burden as the middle and upper class. If an individual or family has a hard enough time putting food on the table or keeping a roof over their head, how can they possibly be expected to carry a larger tax burden?


and then again one half finances the other half.


However, everyone pays into the system. It may not be an equal burden, but the contribution is still made.


the humane thing to do is to give people a future that is better and yet all those programs have done is give people a today no better than a yesterday and a tomorrow no better than any today..


What these programs have done is allowed people to feed their families and obtain some semblance of basic medical care. As it is right now, we have people and families -- young and old, alike -- having to choose between paying for food or medicine while scraping enough together to afford shelter.

...and that is with social programs in place.

Can you imagine what would happen if these programs were cut completely?

Truly, a little empathy goes a long way.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 





First of all, it is virtually impossible to expect our poorest citizens (there is no such thing as "so-called poor" -- either you're poor or your not) to carry the same tax burden as the middle and upper class. If an individual or family has a hard enough time putting food on the table or keeping a roof over their head, how can they possibly be expected to carry a larger tax burden?


the way it is now and with the rampant fraud and abuse that makes it that much harder on those footing the bill which destroys their lives so that others dont suffer.





However, everyone pays into the system. It may not be an equal burden, but the contribution is still made.


and there in lies the problem people are getting out of the system more than is being paid into it.





What these programs have done is allowed people to feed their families and obtain some semblance of basic medical care. As it is right now, we have people and families -- young and old, alike -- having to choose between paying for food or medicine while scraping enough together to afford shelter. ...and that is with social programs in place.


those programs are stealing from others they should be given the choice of where their money is spent they earned it the poor have not if people want to give their money to others that should and always remain the individuals choice and it should not be a choice made with a gun to their head.





Can you imagine what would happen if these programs were cut completely?


yeah out of the 40 to 50 million americans getting paid by taxes alot of those would start paying taxes.


i am not a heartless person but there are too many people abusing the system because they can.

freedom of choice i what i want you can give if you want but let others decide for themselves.

it was a good chat maria but we will never have any common ground here.

later and peace.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
those programs are stealing from others they should be given the choice of where their money is spent they earned it the poor have not if people want to give their money to others that should and always remain the individuals choice and it should not be a choice made with a gun to their head.


It's not theft. It's contributing to support our government and its programs.



yeah out of the 40 to 50 million americans getting paid by taxes alot of those would start paying taxes.

i am not a heartless person but there are too many people abusing the system because they can.


The vast majority of people pay some form of tax, be it federal, local, sales, liquor, cigarette, hotel, etc. To allude otherwise is crazy talk.

However, you are right in one respect: There will always be people who abuse the system. It goes with the territory.

But should we punish everyone who needs these social services for the conduct of the few that don't? I think not.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
If I recall correctly, former president GWB once said along the line of:




"It's just a piece of paper."


And that's my feeling, too. There are TOO many interpretations and amendments to the US Constitution. Surely, there would be something much simpler to understand.


I have only a high school education, and I have no problem understanding the Constitution. Why do people with masters and doctorate degrees seem to have such problems? Here's why: because it doesn't say what they want it to say. That's why the 2nd and 14th Amendments are so polarizing. They say exactly what they mean, but enough people in charge just don't like them (Congress, judges, special interest groups and anyone afraid of being told "I've had enough!"), so they decide to interpret them differently. And by "differently" I mean "wrongly".

Interpretation is not needed for the Constitution. There are plenty of extra-Constitutional writings by the framers outside of it and the Amendments explaining exactly what they meant when they wrote them. The writers of the 14th Amendment were clear on the day they introduced it. It's in the public record, yet it has to be "interpreted" as what they "really meant", even though when introducing it in Congress they said what it meant!

www.14thamendment.us

/TOA



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
It's not theft. It's contributing to support our government and its programs.


You need to learn the difference between "contribution" and "robbery". We don't have any choice but to pay into the system. If you don't, you go to prison with a gun pointed at you. What else is "forcibly taking your money at gunpoint"? I think it's called "robbery."


The vast majority of people pay some form of tax, be it federal, local, sales, liquor, cigarette, hotel, etc. To allude otherwise is crazy talk.

However, you are right in one respect: There will always be people who abuse the system. It goes with the territory.

But should we punish everyone who needs these social services for the conduct of the few that don't? I think not.


I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to help anyone under the age of 18. Any child that needs help should get it. But when you become an adult, all bets are off and it's up to you. Get a job, pay your bills, save some money, retire. Quit sponging off of people that actually do those things to support themselves and their own families.

/TOA



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




But when you become an adult, all bets are off and it's up to you. Get a job, pay your bills, save some money, retire. Quit sponging off of people that actually do those things to support themselves and their own families.


Which social programs do you propose be cut?

Social security? Food stamps? Welfare? Medicare? Medicaid? Supplemental security income?

Or, are you willing to pick and choose which programs should exist because of whom they are intended to help.

Veteran benefits? Subsidized housing? G.I. Bill? Unemployment insurance? Student loans? Earned income tax credit? Child and dependent care tax credit? Home mortgage interest deduction? 529 college saving plans?

It grieves me to see how callous people can be in their disregard for their fellow man. Those who have no compunction letting people starve or live on the street or suffer and die because they can't afford decent medical care or medication. It's shameful.
edit on 5/3/2011 by maria_stardust because: spelling



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by The Old American
 




But when you become an adult, all bets are off and it's up to you. Get a job, pay your bills, save some money, retire. Quit sponging off of people that actually do those things to support themselves and their own families.


Which social programs do you propose be cut?

Social security? Food stamps? Welfare? Medicare? Medicaid? Supplemental security income?

Or, are you willing to pick and choose which programs should exist because of whom they are intended to help.

Veteran benefits? Subsidized housing? G.I. Bill? Unemployment insurance? Student loans? Earned income tax credit? Child and dependent care tax credit? Home mortgage interest deduction? 529 college saving plans?

It grieves me to see how callous people can be in their disregard for their fellow man. Those who have no compunction letting people starve or live on the street or suffer and die because they can't afford decent medical care or medication. It's shameful.
edit on 5/3/2011 by maria_stardust because: spelling


Yes, it is shameful when people do that, isn't it? That's why I volunteer my time and money for other people. I've assisted in building two houses for Habitat for Humanity. I've worked with the Red Cross. I alone saved one child from drowning. What have you done personally for your fellow man? I listed 1/10th of mine. Can you list even one?

And those programs you list above? Keep listing.

/TOA
edit on 3-5-2011 by The Old American because: spelling



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




What have you done personally for your fellow man? I listed 1/10th of mine. Can you list even one?


It's great to see that you've done volunteer work to help your fellow man. Unfortunately, relying upon works of charity isn't nearly enough to fully replace social programs. Don't get me wrong, every little bit helps, but it's not the solution.

It's sad that you're using your good deeds to instigate a pissing contest of sorts. What would be the purpose of that?

If really must know, I've volunteered at a women's and children's shelter. I've manned abuse hotlines. I've volunteered at homeless shelters. I make regular donations to food banks. I donate clothes and other sundries to charity groups. ...and I normally don't make a habit of detailing my good deeds. I've done these things because it's the right thing to do.

I hope that satisfies your curiosity.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I want to know how much of the perceived need of these programs is simply a product of these programs.

There was a period in this countrys history, not too long ago in fact, where none of these programs existed. You'd think our history books would have at least a mention of the legions of ill and elderly dying in the streets if life were so impossibly unlivable then. Right?

So post the creation of these programs how many laws, regulations and layers of bureaucracy have made the pre social program lifestyle no longer a possibility?

It's like when people complain that there isnt any place for a power plant when they're all playing the NIMBY card then bitching about brown outs.

Seems to me that so much time and effort has been spent on ensuring the long life of these allegedly temporary programs that nobody has ever bothered to actually do anything to really help the people who may have need of these programs or even ask if there is another way to live without them. Obviously there is because life went on long before these programs and according to history it went on fairly smoothly for more people then than it does now.
edit on 3-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
the opt out program will not work.
Cuz the rich will always opt out
of the program and then there will be
a huge re-distribution of wealth
worse than what we already have.
It's either all or nothing. And quit
giving them loopholes to GE who
made $1B in profits in 2010 and
paid zero taxes.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




Seems to me that so much time and effort has been spent on ensuring the long life of these allegedly temporary programs that nobody has ever bothered to actually do anything to really help the people who may have need of these programs or even ask if there is another way to live without them. Obviously there is because life went on long before these programs and according to history it went on fairly smoothly for more people then than it does now.


Sure life went on. Life always goes on. Some just had an easier row to plough than others.

However, did it ever occur to you that these programs were initially created to address a very real need?

For example, scores of people rely on unemployment insurance just to scrape by after they lost their jobs. A person or family can only live on their savings for so long before they tap it dry. Should they be allowed to starve or lose their homes because they are going through a rough spot? Should they be denied medical attention because they no longer have adequate health insurance?

Relying on the goodness of others is not a practical solution. There needs to be a safety net in place for those who fall on hard times.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


One would have to ask where that "real need" came from.

I'm willing to bet it was from government mismanaging things it had no business managing.

A government made solution to a government created problem is no solution.

The New Deal was a mess and served as the basis for just about every "bubble" and subsequent bursting to this day.

Going back to my last post about the layers of regulations and laws it doesnt help a man make a life when the government buys up all the land and makes even small scale farming a crime without paying fees fines and taxes.

There is no way to make a life without an income (if even in the form of a welfare check) and the government made it that way. Whether or not it was intentional I wouldnt know. If past government behavior is any indication my money would be on intentional.

The land is off limits. The food is off limits. And we're all being herded into urban centers to receive these programs.

An entire mode of human existence is no longer possible because of government decree.

This post by ProtoplasmicTraveler describes what I am trying to say pretty well: post
edit on 3-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
if you don't get your social security money back, it is theft and your rights were violated, which goes against the constitution. Justice will not be served until we confiscate all the assets from the illuminati families, that is the only way to pay back the real debt, the debt owed to the American citizens (the real ones that pay taxes).



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




One would have to ask where that "real need" came from.

I'm willing to bet it was from government mismanaging things it had no business managing.

A government made solution to a government created problem is no solution


But isn't the government beholden to its people?

If we were to do away with this various social programs, do you honestly think our citizens would benefit?

Hungry, desperate people have a tendency to do desperate things in the need to survive. As it currently stands, this nation is faced with an alarming number of citizens who are homeless, unemployed, hungry and lacking adequate medical care.

Will the problems these programs address magically disappear if the programs are discontinued?

No. If anything they will become exacerbated.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


Sure, in the short term at least. And why would the problem appear exacerbated?

Because those living off of these programs today have never known any differently.

Just like feeding animals in the wild. Eventually they become so accustomed to your handout that they'll either starve to death without it or get themselves killed wandering into a populated area in search of it.

But like I said before, perpetuating a government program to cover for government created problems is not a solution.

It took the gov a good long time to ruin this country. It'll take a good long time to get it back. Ignoring that there is a problem and just permitting it to continue isnt going to help any of us.
edit on 3-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



Relying on the goodness of others is not a practical solution. There needs to be a safety net in place for those who fall on hard times.



You seem to have an aweful low opinion of the generosity of your fellow man. (or woman, gotta be PC you know
)

Back before the days of big government, it was the religious institutions which were the main organizers of big charities. Most hospitals were built by religious organizations and provided care free of cost for the poor and destitute.

Religious institutions used to have huge land holdings which they rented out for almost nothing and, when the renters fell on hard times, they would give them a helping hand instead of an eviction notice. The religious organizations used their wealth to promote the common good. Sure, there were some abuses but, on the whole, the system worked well and people were able to support themselves with little or no need for charity.

With the secularization of society came about the wholesale theft of these properties from the religious organizations by governments.

What did the government do with the lands it had siezed? It gave it out to its new breed of nobles as a reward for not standing up for the rights of the people and supporting the government instead. These new "nobles" quickly sent out eviction notices to all the tenants and turned the land once used for the common good into palacial estates.

Before King Henry VIII and the English Reformation, the word "pauper" did not exist in the English language. Thanks to the intervention of big government, a permanent class of the poor was created for the rich to exploit and the rich and big government have been working to keep this system in place ever since.


You may put your faith in big government to save the less fortunate but, those with eyes to see know that it is big government which has put the less fortunate into the position they are in. They want to keep people dependent on government handouts and crappy jobs that barely keep them going from paycheck to paycheck. That is the way they maintain their power and keep the little guy from getting ahead.

A people capable of sustaining themselves is a people capable of throwing off the rulership of the political class and bringing about a truley just society. TPTB know the people will not bite the hand that feeds them, so they make sure we stay always hungry, never capable of living past the next handout or weekly paycheck. They keep us in this state of dependence to keep us under their control.

Only by breaking free of power coming from above at the highest levels can we ever hope to gain our own independence. Turn government upside down, give the most power to the local government which the people can hold accountable and the least to those who are furthest removed from the people and, maybe, once all the roadblocks to success have been removed, the poor will be able to rise from their state of dependence to be able to sustain themselves.

We should not have to rely on charity from a bunch of faceless bueareaucrats far away in Washington.


edit on 5/3/11 by FortAnthem because: spellin :bnghd:



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join