Sarah Palin calls North Korea Ally of U.S.

[BrianW]

What is your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as written in the Constitution. ...Why does the "general welfare" not warrant consideration also?

I'd say part of it would be something like the Federal Interstate Highway System. That was originally designed and implemented as a "high dollar defense project" to move manpower & materials, but has had a wide ranging effect, mostly positive imo, on "the general welfare" of the people. The Feds coordinated the efforts, put up the majority of the money which came primarily from the users in fuel taxes and created ongoing jobs for maintenance & improvements.

Another example would be an effective border control program.

Imo, those "multi hundred billion dollar defense projects" do benefit "the general welfare" but it's an indirect effect rather than a "direct deposit". One of the GW problems is often lack of competition, which drives innovation.
Spinoffs of defense projects have delivered countless benefits to the GW, ones that likely would have developed eventually but were given a kick in the pants by needing to beat the other guy.

Basically my view is that you can't be as concerned about your 'welfare" , ie "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity." until AFTER you're "free from the risk of loss". . And imo, that's a primary reason they were put in the Constitution in the order they were.
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

[Juli H]

I get roiled when I see abuses of the system as much as anyone, but do feel there is a place for gov't assistance in limited doses.

What is your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as written in the Constitution. It also says "provide for the common defense" and conservatives have no problem with multi-hundred-billion dollar defense budgets. Why does the "general welfare" not warrant consideration also?

promote the general welfare...Obviously the founding fathers realized the importance of having citizens who look at the future of their lives with hope and ambition - and that the gov't under which those people reside does not stand in their way as they try to do so....People who are willing to invest in the betterment of their lives will, in some way shape or form, improve the overall 'state of the union'.


In my opinion - this means:
Encouraging people to change their situation, if they so desire...through education, first.... IMO, a vast majority of people who rely almost solely on gov't handouts simply aren't willing or don't know how to make the tough choices, in order to improve their lives (ie, don't spend money on things that are not necessities)..

If someone doesn't want to find work, let's not presume they can't (work)and support them for the rest of their life (ie, it might not be in the best interest of a child to give them ice cream for dinner, simply because they won't eat their spaghetti). There has to be a cut off, at some point and time.

I have absolutely NO problem with people using food stamps or other gov't assistance programs, for SHORT periods of time...The only exception I can see here is for people that are absolutely unable to work - in these instances the care and support of these people should first (if possible) come from family, then church/charity, then state, then fed gov't.

Also - promoting the general welfare of the people means (to me) promoting the (wise) development of the country's natural resources. And to develop and maintain infrastructure. And promote and fund more education..not necessarily college education - but ANY type of education which will allow someone to get a job, get a better job, or start a business.

Is it best for 'my' general welfare, that I have to give part of my earnings (little as they are, LOL) to those who are unwilling to work or find better work? Is it better for businesses? is it better for the people who have come to depend on welfare as a means to make ends meet?... Promote the General Welfare does NOT translate to 'Spread the Wealth'. IMO.



One of my favorite movies of all time is 'The Pursuit of Happiness'..awesome movie ....

Juli

[dnf777]

Is it best for 'my' general welfare, that I have to give part of my earnings (little as they are, LOL) to those who are unwilling to work or find better work? Is it better for businesses? is it better for the people who have come to depend on welfare as a means to make ends meet?... Promote the General Welfare does NOT translate to 'Spread the Wealth'. IMO.
Juli

My opinion too, I agree. Wealth should not be spread to the poor, NOR should middle class be burdened with more taxes so the wealthiest don't have to pay their fair share.

I am ok with programs that help the disabled, the retarded or unfit to work, and people temporarily down on their luck, while they seek work. My problem with the republicans is that they have no tolerance for any of the above. They have tried, and continue to this day, to dismantle social security and medicare. Sometimes blatantly, other times more subversive, such as Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize it. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008? I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.

[Uncle Bill]

Your post along with Brian's, Juli, make for great understanding of the constitutional meaning of 'welfare'. But to the left, welfare means handouts...total care by taking from the providers and giving to the 'manipulators' of the system. They seldom see the wrong in extending the 'unemployment' checks beyond what the original intent was for extensions.

None of those in the DNF mold seem to understand the ONLY reason to keep paying for illegitimate babies of unwed mothers, crack babies, etc., is to provide voters FOR this corrupt system of "welfare". The libs lump the meaning of that term into what the have-nots understand it to be, and the Democrats are quick to exploit it. For a vote, they are happy to keep their constituancy uneducated and dependant on them for their welfare payments.

Even in our state of Sodak, to which Buzz offered up his phony accolades, we have a "kept" society like that in Alaska. While getting millions of dollars over the years, and now having the profits of very lucrative gambling casinos, they still have their hands out for more 'welfare'. It's what they've been 'educated' to do. Not much different than the generations of welfarists in New Orleans.

As we have seen in the state of California, where now the tail is wagging the dog, the legal 'anchor-babies' of past generations, along with the multitudes from the Woodstock generation, have become the majority. It's difficult for me to ever see that state becoming anything but a lost cause. I believe that Atlas has shrugged off that area, and probably the entire left coast. As I have always believed, elections are seldom about the people getting what they wanted, but most assuredly, they get what they deserve.

UB

[Uncle Bill]

My opinion too, I agree. Wealth should not be spread to the poor, NOR should middle class be burdened with more taxes so the wealthiest don't have to pay their fair share.

I am ok with programs that help the disabled, the retarded or unfit to work, and people temporarily down on their luck, while they seek work. My problem with the republicans is that they have no tolerance for any of the above. They have tried, and continue to this day, to dismantle social security and medicare. Sometimes blatantly, other times more subversive, such as Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize it. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008? I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.

PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.

But then, as I've mentioned to you previously, if you keep silent, we'll only THINK you are ignorant. But when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.

That last line of your "observation" of what Bush proposed is so stupidly ignorant, and preposterously asinine, it defys acknowledgement.

UB

[david gibson]

PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.

But then, as I've mentioned to you previously, if you keep silent, we'll only THINK you are ignorant. But when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.
That last line of your "observation" of what Bush proposed is so stupidly ignorant, and preposterously asinine, it defys acknowledgement.

UB

oh we have known this a while Unca Bill, but it is always fun to rehash it. thanks for the sunday chuckle!

[depittydawg]

PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.

But then, as I've mentioned to you previously, if you keep silent, we'll only THINK you are ignorant. But when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.

That last line of your "observation" of what Bush proposed is so stupidly ignorant, and preposterously asinine, it defys acknowledgement.

UB

Now that's intelligent. Nice job.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008?

Or they might have invested in gold )

I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.

I would imagine that any privatization of SS would require that funds be allocated a certain %-age to low-risk investments so that long-term results would be more predictable. At least that would make logical sense, and there is no guarantee that our legislators would be logical or sensible given their track record.

For example, I rolled over a pension lump sum into an IRA with a reputable insurance company. The return was guaranteed at no less than 4%/year. It could go up if interest rates went up (not sure what the index is). I was disappointed as the interest rates decreased over time (started this in 1992) ... but I'm pretty happy now knowing that 4% is guaranteed.

Retirement savings have to be viewed with long-term in mind ... and no financial planner would ever advise placing an entire portfolio in higher-risk vehicles.

The one good thing about privatization of SS is that the govt could not have raided the fund to balance their bad budgets. Getting everyone's retirement funds out of the legislators' hands is not such a bad idea if done right.

One might also try to think about how it would have fueled investment if all that $ had been even partly allocated to private enterprise ... and the jobs it might have created.

[dnf777]

None of those in the DNF mold seem to understand the ONLY reason to keep paying for illegitimate babies of unwed mothers, crack babies, etc., is to provide voters FOR this corrupt system of "welfare".
UB

Gee. Is that why I say all women on pubic assistance should have to have norplant or depo shots when they pick up their check?

Google the above terms....its obvious you have no idea what they mean...or else you just like assigning your prejudices onto others to fit your idea of the world.

[dnf777]

oh we have known this a while Unca Bill, but it is always fun to rehash it. thanks for the sunday chuckle!

There goes your ilk stealing lines again. Can't come up with anything original? Well, at least its not parroting Beck or Hannity this time.

You two have a nice day in your world.