Originally posted by MacSwainSo the question is about what does it mean to provide for the general welfare.
[b]Isn't your questions answer already existing in your founding documents?
___________________________________________________________
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers as:
Section 8: 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 gene ...[text shortened]... e United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Again, if the Founding Fathers wanted to provide for the general "welfare", why did they not insist on a "welfare" state?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYour statement is further explained by my previous post. (which sadly disappeared from sight as the last post on the previous page) 😞
Again, if the Founding Fathers wanted to provide for the general "welfare", why did they not insist on a "welfare" state?
___________________________________________________________
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage; from great courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back to bondage.”
--Alexander Frazer Tyler (1776)-- ?? (or whomever No1 wishes to substitute)
_____________________________________________________
“The problem is: for too long, the measure of success in society was: Society consistently grew larger in number, regardless of the qualities of that increased number or their relative willingness or ability to contribute to the common good.
From Tyler's quote above, it is clear why America’s founders created a republic and not a democracy. Since the country’s founding the federal government has gradually taken control from the states and succeeded in changing that republic into a democracy. This change into a democracy has brought America to the point where it is now in the phase where it passes from apathy into dependence.
America will languish in the “Nanny State” phase for a while until it shatters beneath its own weight and descends into the next phase, which is government-inflicted bondage.”
*edit: Obviously there is more than one meaning for the word "welfare" which some intentionally morph into today's ideology.
Originally posted by whodeyAs I said - this phrase is absurdly vague. Who knows what the framers intended by the word "welfare"? They themselves probably had no idea what it meant - or maybe there were so many differences of opinion amongst themselves that they decided to keep it vague and let the democratic process fill in the blanks.
So the question is about what does it mean to provide for the general welfare.
Again, if the Founding Fathers wanted to provide for the general "welfare", why did they not insist on a "welfare" state?
3 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainThere's this myth that the founders were all united behind a single perfect vision for what form the government of the US should take. In reality, it was a squabbling mess of different ideas, and I suspect most of the founders expected that the new Constitution (or the Union itself) would probably not last that much longer than the previous Articles of Confederation did.
Your statement is further explained by my previous post. (which sadly disappeared from sight as the last post on the previous page) 😞
___________________________________________________________
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the publi neath its own weight and descends into the next phase, which is government-inflicted bondage.”
One of the major splits caused the nation to form into two parties almost immediately (which upset president Washington greatly). The Hamiltonians (mostly in New England) wanted a single union with a strong central government, while the Jeffersonians (mostly in the Virginia area) wanted to have separate sovereign states held together by only a very weak federal government.
And more than two centuries later, it seems like we're still arguing about these very same things.
But if they went through a time machine to today, the founders would likely be totally astonished to see that their Constitution has remained in place through all this time - with only 27 amendments.
1 edit
Originally posted by Melanerpes"They themselves probably had no idea what it meant"
As I said - this phrase is absurdly vague. Who knows what the framers intended by the word "welfare"? They themselves probably had no idea what it meant - or maybe there were so many differences of opinion amongst themselves that they decided to keep it vague and let the democratic process fill in the blanks.
I really don't think you believe that....If you do, you qualify as one of the more pompous asses (of the many) I have encountered on these threads.
Who knows what the framers intended by the word "welfare"?
I note you have intentionally left out a key word of your founders: GENERAL
Possible examples:
Maintain an army to fend-off invaders = "GENERAL welfare."
Maintain a judiciary = "GENERAL welfare."
Take wealth from Peter and give it to Paul for his daily expenditures = "PERSONAL welfare" for Paul.
Originally posted by MacSwainWhich has now come to this:
Take wealth from Peter and give it to Paul for his daily expenditures = "PERSONAL welfare" for Paul.
From that moment on, the majority (PAUL) always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.
Originally posted by MacSwainHow many democracies have collapsed to dictatorship in this fashion?
Which has now come to this:
From that moment on, the majority [b](PAUL) always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwain[/i][/b]Other examples:
[b]"They themselves probably had no idea what it meant"
I really don't think you believe that....If you do, you qualify as one of the more pompous asses (of the many) I have encountered on these threads.
Who knows what the framers intended by the word "welfare"?
I note you have intentionally left out a key word of your founders: [i]G m Peter and give it to Paul for his daily expenditures = "PERSONAL welfare" for Paul.
Give everyone access to affordable healthcare = "GENERAL welfare"
Have a system in place to ensure that no one in the nation starves = "GENERAL welfare"
now you might define "GENERAL welfare" in a way that differs from the way that I define it. My point is that the founders had many differences of opinions about these sorts of things. The only way for them to come up with a document that could all agree on would be to keep things like this vague and let the people decide these issues through the democratic process they set up.
2 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainOr perhaps the people periodically get worried enough about the fiscal state that they become willing to make sacrifices.
Which has now come to this:
From that moment on, the majority [b](PAUL) always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.[/b]
Back in the 1980's, the government was running up large deficits but somehow, H.W. Bush and Clinton managed to put policies in place that got the budget balanced.
We have since gone through another period in which eveyone has been demanding twice the food for half the price. But it appears likely that we're going to be entering a period in which we again agree to take serious steps to balance the budget - which will probably happen by 2020.
And then we'll become fiscally irresponsible again between 2020-2030.
Of course this cyclical process isn't as exciting as predicting that the nation will descend into chaos.
1 edit
I think having a chunk of my hard-earned money stolen from me to fund an imperialist military that bombs babies in foreign countries is "socialism" (fascism, really). If you Tea Baggers take over the country in 2012, can I have a tax form that allows me to opt out of funding the military by checking a box? It's my choice! "Live free, die free" and all that.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThis thread is peppered with statements like this one of yours, intimating those authors were "confused, didn't understand the meaning of words they used and did not come to agreement."
My point is that the founders had many differences of opinions about these sorts of things. The only way for them to come up with a document that could all agree on would be to keep things like this vague and let the people decide these issues through the democratic process they set up.
It's really frustrating to read these "opinions."
I suggest everyone (who is truly interested in acquiring knowledge on the subject) take a break from unfounded pontificting and read:
A MORE PERFECT UNION - the making of the united states constitution / by: William Peters - 1987
btw: The founders set up a republican process not a democracy as you stated.
Originally posted by MacSwainMany of the Founding Fathers where rationalists, thoroughly imbued with the ideals of the Age of Reason. As such, I'm sure they fully expected future generations to employ reasoning of their own and not blindly follow the exact wording of the Constitution like a recipe in a Betty Crocker cookbook.
This thread is peppered with statements like this one of yours, intimating those authors were "confused, didn't understand the meaning of words they used and did not come to agreement."
It's really frustrating to read these "opinions."
I suggest everyone (who is truly interested in acquiring knowledge on the subject) take a break from unfounded pontif ...[text shortened]... 987
btw: The founders set up a republican process not a democracy as you stated.
Originally posted by SoothfastOh! Now I understand your viewpoint. "The US Constitution is a listing of suggestions."
Many of the Founding Fathers where rationalists, thoroughly imbued with the ideals of the Age of Reason. As such, I'm sure they fully expected future generations to employ reasoning of their own and not blindly follow the exact wording of the Constitution like a recipe in a Betty Crocker cookbook.
Very unique.... You're one of kind! I hope.
Originally posted by MacSwainNo, it is what is aptly described as a "living document" -- with lots of amendments and various interpretations, as you well know. Frankly I can't figure out your viewpoint. It's a straitjacket? A Holy Bible full of articles of faith, forever changeless? What?
Oh! Now I understand your viewpoint. "The US Constitution is a listing of suggestions."
Very unique.... You're one of kind! I hope.
The Founders are dead. Long live the Founders. Now, let's get busy and think for ourselves.