Perhaps, but not the federal government. At least not directly. It should be handled as locally as possible.
The best place to help the poor is where they live, whether it is at the city, county, state level; or if they live in another country.
WHY? It is easier for corruption to prevail in a state than in the federal government - fewer palms to "grease". I NEVER got that "States Rights" crap - I thought that was settled by the Civil War. Why is it that the states that WANT more states rights are the ones that get money from the federal government and could not balance their budget without federal welfare? I'd like to point out to GOP purists that ObamaCare is EXACTLY the same as RomneyCare, which was developed on a plan from the GOP Heritage Fund.
No it isn't. You may want it to be that way, but it is not incumbent upon government by its very existence to do any of those things.
His supporters don't care. The right wing brain is dominated by what they hate, it overrides everything else. They will gladly vote to slit their own economic throat if he means they can stick it to immigrants, blacks, gays, and of course "liberals". Been this way since Reagan.
I agree, I mean the government could do those things by simply interpreting the " the general welfare" clause in the constitution as, you know, actually providing for the basic general welfare of its people. But why would we do that? What are we a nation founded on "Christian values" or something?
defend the country from foreign invaders and attack care for the poor, the sick, the elderly, children. make sure out infrastructure is in good shape. these are the three top priorities for a national govt. that's why we have a military, coast guard, border patrol, social security, medicare, child welfare services, public education.
Executing people is legal and constitutional. It also would be constitutional to have no federal income tax and constitutional to have no welfare system whatsoever. On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.” However, later the Supreme Court took the view that on all issues the Constitution is only secondary their their own personal opinions and whims, meaning only as relevant as they each personally want it to be. If their opinion is different then the Constitution is irrelevant to them. The Constitution has essentially no relevancy to federal courts anymore. Again, if you aren't getting enough from government you should talk to churches. Posting lamenting messages on forums isn't going to get you any more free money thru government forcibly taking it from people to give to you.
The Democratic Party is the party of racism, bigotry, segregation, white supremacy, hate, violence, war and oppression. It should be formally declared a domestic terrorist organization.
sorry bro, but we now have a Constitutional Amendment making the Federal Income tax legal. deal with it. please stop derailing the thread into a discussion on how "taxation is theft"
It's there and is the root cause for government to tax and spend. It's not intended for that which you claim... Look where that's led us... $19.9T and county in debt. >> U.S. Debt Clock <<
Taxation is theft. Taking anything from someone who obtained what they have legally is theft. That the Supreme Court has ruled that the government and police can steal from people does not change that it is theft. Corporations are people too, accordingly you and your view of anything the Supreme Court says is therefore correct and right. Now, quote the Supreme Court ruling the federal government has a constitutional requirement to take care of the poor, since that is your claim.
The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled this requires the federal government to take care of the poor. Your claim is 100% false and you know it.
At least you agree that secularism has nothing to do with helping people. On no occasion did Jesus say people should look to the government for help, nor that the government is responsible for charity. That is just a huge lie by atheists arguing that they should give nothing to help anyone, but that money should be taken only from Christians to finance government and with a few crumbs of that tossed out to selected people who aren't in government. One of the common themes of Democrats on this forum is that only Christians have a duty to help anyone, never atheists, and government should take money from Christians to enforce this rule upon Christians.
Absolutely. For capitalism has unemployment cooked in, at least in reality. Not sure if it does in theory, but we have to deal with reality since human suffering is at stake. Then you have the sick, the crippled who are not able to provide needed resources for their survival. So it is the right and moral thing to do. Yet it can create leeches if not properly structured but that is a problem which is just not that hard to solve, although we do not seem to want to do that. I would tie the safety net, for the unemployed in with labor. We should never just give the resources away for lazy, unmotivated people will exploit that and that is unquestionable. So, in the place of welfare we should have workfare, where these unemployed people enter into a public works program. So they labor for their survival as it should be. There is plenty of work that needs to be done in this nation. And the nature of the work might encourage most to want another profession, and to find a job in the private sector as they become available. Of course for the sick, and crippled, we should just collectively support them, for this is what a moral civilization does. IMO, if you do not agree with this, there is a problem of immorality involved, in those people who disagree, although they might hide behind some ideology divorced from reality and many ideological beliefs are. For when an ideological belief trumps human life, there is a big problem involved with the ideological belief. Most times it is just rooted in evil, and that is the truth of the matter.
Everyone should have some skin in the game taking responsibility for their individual needs. Family, friends, the local community of churches and charitable organizations, the towns, cities, counties, and states should be the order of operation in collectively supporting the poor and others who cannot provide for themselves and their families... This is not an area where the people should trust the federal government to mismanage yet another program designed to redistribute the wealth of producers to non-producers.
I'm neither a D, or an R, so, let's get That clear (again) right out the gate. This hasn't thing one to do with State's rights. It has all to do with limiting the direct involvement of the Federal government. Just about everything the federal government touches... ESPECIALLY when it comes to "helping" in any way, turns quickly into a warm wet shart. Just one recent example? ACA.
Please, you're talking to the wrong guy. I went to catholic school for 12 years, there is nothing remotely Christian about the Republican Party. LOL I mean they literally just elected a man who, if Jesus returned today, quite possibly would be the one person he would choose to hold up as the complete embodiment of everything a Christian is NOT supposed to be. And BTW, there are plenty of teachings about the role of government in helping the poor in the Bible. Paul in the 13th chapter of Romans says "Civil authority is designed to be "God's servant for your good" (13:4) Psalm 72 begins with a prayer for kings or political leaders, employing that they "defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." And there are plenty more. A democratic free government is not some living independent entity, its made up of US, the people. In America, almost entirely so-called Christians. And the role of this institution is to carry out the laws based on OUR beliefs and philosophies as we see fit, period. It's entirely laughable and pathetic when right wingers like yourself, brainwashed by corporate propaganda, twist yourself into pretzels trying make a case that it's somehow wrong or "unchristian" for we the people to organize our government to care for the poor.
