The reason why I hate The Abusers of the System

[grannywils]

ffa 1 mf: Said: Perhaps someone may correct me, but the advice given to “Liberals and Obama supporters” to watch the video didn’t make sense to me. Obama is a liberal democrat (I think?) and was he not part of the effort to finally pass a law to move people from welfare to work that was initiated by Clinton (a republican?), a law that was largely ignored by Bush (a republican?), and that has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare?

It may be because I am not an American and do not have a full understanding of the political system, so I wouldn’t mind if someone could explain the point of view or debate the statement makes, as it seems contradictory to me.

 

For a variety of exceptionally good reasons I have decided not to participate in this particular debate. However, since you asked a question in the above paragraph, I will just respond to it and go. Yes, Mr. Obama is a Liberal Democrat.and has been part of the effort to move people from welfare to work. This was initiated by Mr. Clinton who was also a Democrat (more of a Centrist than a Liberal). Yes the law was pretty much ignored by Mr. Bush, a Republican. Yes it has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare. As I did not make the statement to which you refer, I am unable to explain the point of view of the person who made it.

[SpellAndShield]

ffa 1 mf: Said: Perhaps someone may correct me, but the advice given to “Liberals and Obama supporters” to watch the video didn’t make sense to me. Obama is a liberal democrat (I think?) and was he not part of the effort to finally pass a law to move people from welfare to work that was initiated by Clinton (a republican?), a law that was largely ignored by Bush (a republican?), and that has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare?

It may be because I am not an American and do not have a full understanding of the political system, so I wouldn’t mind if someone could explain the point of view or debate the statement makes, as it seems contradictory to me.

 

For a variety of exceptionally good reasons I have decided not to participate in this particular debate. However, since you asked a question in the above paragraph, I will just respond to it and go. Yes, Mr. Obama is a Liberal Democrat.and has been part of the effort to move people from welfare to work. This was initiated by Mr. Clinton who was also a Democrat (more of a Centrist than a Liberal). Yes the law was pretty much ignored by Mr. Bush, a Republican. Yes it has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare. As I did not make the statement to which you refer, I am unable to explain the point of view of the person who made it.

 

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

[HeyYou]

ffa 1 mf: Said: Perhaps someone may correct me, but the advice given to "Liberals and Obama supporters" to watch the video didn't make sense to me. Obama is a liberal democrat (I think?) and was he not part of the effort to finally pass a law to move people from welfare to work that was initiated by Clinton (a republican?), a law that was largely ignored by Bush (a republican?), and that has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare?

It may be because I am not an American and do not have a full understanding of the political system, so I wouldn't mind if someone could explain the point of view or debate the statement makes, as it seems contradictory to me.

 

For a variety of exceptionally good reasons I have decided not to participate in this particular debate. However, since you asked a question in the above paragraph, I will just respond to it and go. Yes, Mr. Obama is a Liberal Democrat.and has been part of the effort to move people from welfare to work. This was initiated by Mr. Clinton who was also a Democrat (more of a Centrist than a Liberal). Yes the law was pretty much ignored by Mr. Bush, a Republican. Yes it has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare. As I did not make the statement to which you refer, I am unable to explain the point of view of the person who made it.

 

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

 

There is very little difference between the dems, and the repubbies on most economic issues. They both seem to think that tax cuts for rich corporations will prompt them to create some jobs. (here in the states....) Hasn't worked in the past, don't have a clue what makes them think it will work "this time". Typical government stupidity.

 

The welfare to work programs are somewhat less than useless. here in michigan, if you are able-bodied, you MUST do some variety of work, in order to maintain your benefits. Of course, a fair number of the 'make work' programs are just as useless...... and if you should manage to get even a minimum wage job, unless you have a wife, and four kids, your benefits immediately dry up.

 

The guy in the video knew exactly what he was doing, when he took money that was supposed to pay his rent, and spent it elsewhere. He is just one of the many that ABUSE the system, and feel it is their "right" to do so, as 'everyone else is doing it too'..... Even though NOT everyone else is doing it. Its just a rationalization. Personally, had I been judge Judy, I would have had the cops on him on his way out of the courthouse, and had him busted for fraud.

 

While there are no provisions, for welfare programs in the constitution, there also are no clauses prohibiting it. If you expect to find something in the constitution for everything the government does..... well, you would be disappointed. ( I don't recall reading anywhere in there where we should use our military to overthrow legitimate (if distasteful) governments either.)

[ffa1mf]

Thank you responders, that clarifies things somewhat, it also opens a whole list of questions that I want to ask, but won't.

 

I apologize grannywils - but thank you for the reply and explanation.

 

@stardusk-Thank you as well. I was looking at what would be a traditional philosophy for the democratic party in using the term liberal democrat. In my country the political parties are named the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and they do tend to follow their traditional philosophies. It's just a bit more difficult to remember republican/traditionally conservative and democrat/traditionally liberal when not used to it and to be honest, I get the American parties mixed up all the time.

 

@HeyYou-thanks as well. Sad to hear the program isn't as good as I heard it was. Pretty much everytime I look at politics I am struck by the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Kind of defines politics in my country anyway. As for the gentleman in the video, I agree, there should have been a policeman standing outside the courtroom waiting to have him answer a few questions just to find out exactly what was going on.

[marharth]

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

Agree with stardusk on that matter.

 

 

 

I have to disagree welfare is unconstitutional based on article one section eight.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

General welfare meaning...

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

 

Since welfare refers to the general happiness, health, or even financial support, congress is given that power by the constitution.

[SpellAndShield]

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

Agree with stardusk on that matter.

 

 

 

I have to disagree welfare is unconstitutional based on article one section eight.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

General welfare meaning...

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

 

Since welfare refers to the general happiness, health, or even financial support, congress is given that power by the constitution.

 

The Welfare clause is always misinterpreted as is the state commerce clause. The founders never intended for the government to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave.

 

We all know the meaning of words can change over time. In order to more accurately assess the meaning of the word "welfare", with respect to its use in the Constitution, I consulted a source from that period. I happened to own a reprint of the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how the word "welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

 

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

 

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

 

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html

Edited September 22, 2011 by Stardusk

[marharth]

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

Agree with stardusk on that matter.

 

 

 

I have to disagree welfare is unconstitutional based on article one section eight.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

General welfare meaning...

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

 

Since welfare refers to the general happiness, health, or even financial support, congress is given that power by the constitution.

 

The Welfare clause is always misinterpreted as is the state commerce clause. The founders never intended for the government to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave.

Welfare is not meant to take care of people, it is meant to make living easier so people can get a job or get a better job.

 

What is general welfare supposed to mean? The constitution gives congress the power to pass laws regarding general welfare, and the definition of welfare is pretty much just well being.

[SpellAndShield]

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

Agree with stardusk on that matter.

 

 

 

I have to disagree welfare is unconstitutional based on article one section eight.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

General welfare meaning...

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

 

Since welfare refers to the general happiness, health, or even financial support, congress is given that power by the constitution.

 

The Welfare clause is always misinterpreted as is the state commerce clause. The founders never intended for the government to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave.

Welfare is not meant to take care of people, it is meant to make living easier so people can get a job or get a better job.

 

What is general welfare supposed to mean? The constitution gives congress the power to pass laws regarding general welfare, and the definition of welfare is pretty much just well being.

 

It's a very controversial clause but I am pretty sure it never meant to take from someone to give to someone else.

[marharth]

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

Agree with stardusk on that matter.

 

 

 

I have to disagree welfare is unconstitutional based on article one section eight.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

General welfare meaning...

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

 

Since welfare refers to the general happiness, health, or even financial support, congress is given that power by the constitution.

 

The Welfare clause is always misinterpreted as is the state commerce clause. The founders never intended for the government to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave.

Welfare is not meant to take care of people, it is meant to make living easier so people can get a job or get a better job.

 

What is general welfare supposed to mean? The constitution gives congress the power to pass laws regarding general welfare, and the definition of welfare is pretty much just well being.

 

It's a very controversial clause but I am pretty sure it never meant to take from someone to give to someone else.

That's what taxation is about. Taking your money and putting it somewhere else.

[SpellAndShield]

I know you don't want to participate but calling Obama a liberal democrat seems inaccurate to me. His supporters are for the most part but I would simply call him a centrist corporate stooge, little different in his policies to Bush. After 3 years of office I don't think anyone can really be serious about calling Obama a liberal democrat for his actions speak louder than words.

Agree with stardusk on that matter.

 

 

 

I have to disagree welfare is unconstitutional based on article one section eight.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

General welfare meaning...

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

 

Since welfare refers to the general happiness, health, or even financial support, congress is given that power by the constitution.

 

The Welfare clause is always misinterpreted as is the state commerce clause. The founders never intended for the government to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave.

Welfare is not meant to take care of people, it is meant to make living easier so people can get a job or get a better job.

 

What is general welfare supposed to mean? The constitution gives congress the power to pass laws regarding general welfare, and the definition of welfare is pretty much just well being.

 

It's a very controversial clause but I am pretty sure it never meant to take from someone to give to someone else.

That's what taxation is about. Taking your money and putting it somewhere else.

 

We already had this conversation and I recall you admitting that you support government force and violence to achieve political goals, the income tax is just one of them. I do not believe in any form of non-defensive violence however and I would modify your statement to mean the following: That's what taxation is about. Taking your money and putting it somewhere else. throwing it out the window.