Conservative VS Liberal

[ariscus99 1]

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 general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

general welfare=regulation?

[BJean 16]

patty if the government didn't step in and regulate cars, roads and traffic, there would be chaos in the streets and many more people would be killed in traffic accidents. Some drivers are maniacs and road hogs and drive while intoxicated and we need rules to protect American lives.

Business regulation in the United States makes sense too. Not all business owners are trustworthy. Many of them will do anything to make a buck, and I mean ANYTHING. They will take unfair advantage of their workers and treat them like dogs. They will lie, cheat and steal from their customers. There is no end to the kinds of really bad behavior that corporations and business people are guilty of. Someone needs to oversee them for the good of the country and its' citizens.

Having no government oversight promotes corporate bad behavior and problems like Enron become all too common. Americans who worked hard all their lives to save for their future lost everything to the greedy bastards at Enron. That's not fair and regulations can help to prevent those kinds of predatory business practices.

I totally understand the things you say about freedom to make money and run your own company without government interference. And if businesses had a conscience and conducted work fairly, there would be no need for government oversight. But the fact is, people tend to be consumed by greed and selfishness and they will take advantage of others to make a buck when the opportunity presents itself.

I am sorry you can't understand this. Your negative thoughts about the government seem to be clouding your sense of fairness for all, to the extent that you are favoring the capitalist elite over regular Americans trying to eke out a living.

[LeighaMason 19]

Common defense and general welfare = regulation, yes

[pattygreen 5]

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 general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The full Preamble reads:

“We the People of the United States, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Framers of the Constitution were VERY PRECISE in their wording. They wanted to “establish Justice“…and so they set up the court system. They wanted to “insure domestic Tranquility“, and so set up articles in the Constitution that described how the States would interact, etc. They wanted to “provide for the common defence“, and so they set up the Army and the Navy.

But the “general Welfare” phrase is preceded by the word: “promote“. “Promote”, as in “encourage”. Kind of like when the Declaration says people have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. Thus they did NOT establish a welfare system. The Left’s argument that “promote the general Welfare” justifies ObamaCare, actually does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!!

[LeighaMason 19]

"premote the general welfare"

define welfare--–noun

1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

[pattygreen 5]

patty if the government didn't step in and regulate cars, roads and traffic, there would be chaos in the streets and many more people would be killed in traffic accidents. Some drivers are maniacs and road hogs and drive while intoxicated and we need rules to protect American lives.

The constitution says we should provide for the common defense. In these cases it should regulate some things. The problem comes in when they OVER regulate to the point of putting small businesses out of business, because it's just not worth the hassle to make a small profit.

Business regulation in the United States makes sense too. Not all business owners are trustworthy. Many of them will do anything to make a buck, and I mean ANYTHING. They will take unfair advantage of their workers and treat them like dogs. They will lie, cheat and steal from their customers. There is no end to the kinds of really bad behavior that corporations and business people are guilty of. Someone needs to oversee them for the good of the country and its' citizens.

The government started out on the right foot with many of their regulations for the good of the people, but they have turned their "concern for us" into "concern for themselves". It has gotten too big now and needs to back off some.

Having no government oversight promotes corporate bad behavior and problems like Enron become all too common. Americans who worked hard all their lives to save for their future lost everything to the greedy bastards at Enron. That's not fair and regulations can help to prevent those kinds of predatory business practices.

I totally understand the things you say about freedom to make money and run your own company without government interference. And if businesses had a conscience and conducted work fairly, there would be no need for government oversight. But the fact is, people tend to be consumed by greed and selfishness and they will take advantage of others to make a buck when the opportunity presents itself.

I am sorry you can't understand this. Your negative thoughts about the government seem to be clouding your sense of fairness for all, to the extent that you are favoring the capitalist elite over regular Americans trying to eke out a living.

Not true. I don't "favor' anyone. I just know that the government is NOT the answer, it's the problem.

[pattygreen 5]

"premote the general welfare"

define welfare--–noun

1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

The word in the constitution is PROMOTE general welfare, not PROVIDE general welfare.

But, if it did say provide general welfare, then you propose that the government give us all a good fortune, and provide us with happiness and prosperity? You also want the government to provide your moral welfare? For if that's the definition of welfare, then why stop at that? Why not all the welfare of the people? prosperity, happiness, good fortune, and morals.

The word was promote.

[LeighaMason 19]

The word in the constitution is PROMOTE general welfare, not PROVIDE general welfare.

But, if it did say provide general welfare, then you propose that the government give us all a good fortune, and provide us with happiness and prosperity? You also want the government to provide your moral welfare? For if that's the definition of welfare, then why stop at that? Why not all the welfare of the people? prosperity, happiness, good fortune, and morals.

The word was promote.

Patty if you will go back and refer to my post, I didn't reference the preamble I referenced SECTION VIII which is in article 1. And the word is PROVIDE, look it up.

definition for provide--1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.

definition for welfare--the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

So the quote of "provide for ...general Welfare of the United States;" by definition means:

"to make available the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization"

This is what HC reform does it makes available (provides) health care to people who were denied.

[pattygreen 5]

Patty if you will go back and refer to my post, I didn't reference the preamble I referenced SECTION VIII which is in article 1. And the word is PROVIDE, look it up.

definition for provide--1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.

definition for welfare--the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

So the quote of "provide for ...general Welfare of the United States;" by definition means:

"to make available the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization"

This is what HC reform does it makes available (provides) health care to people who were denied.

Okay, then why aren't you fighting for your "constitutional' rights of good fortune, prosperity and happiness? If that's what general welfare means. I want good fortune! I want happiness! I want prosperity! It is my constitutional right! (according to Leigha) You took out "health" from that definition of welfare, but overlooked the rest of what welfare means. If the definition of welfare means "to make available" good fortune, then the government owes me some. It should PROVIDE me with prosperity and happiness, too! Can't you see how ridiculous that is? The government is not responsible to PROVIDE you with anything.

If the definition of welfare is to make available "health" for people, then we have already done this and the HC bill is not needed. Health care is available for all. Just go out and purchase some insurance. There, it's available for you. Where does it say they have to make it affordable for you? Or where does it say they should buy it for you?

The government should make available to everybody the opportunity to pursue anything they desire in life. They should do this by allowing free enterprise and by not suffocating people in business with their laws and regulations and rules and taxations.

[LeighaMason 19]

Your finally getting somewhere, your learning.

Patty says "why aren't you fighting for your "constitutional' rights of good fortune, prosperity and happiness? If that's what general welfare means. I want good fortune! I want happiness! I want prosperity! It is my constitutional right!" You are very close, your constitutional right is "to make available" or provide the above, To provide you with the opportunity of good fortune, prosperity and happiness is your constitutional right.

"If the definition of welfare means "to make available" good fortune, then the government owes me some."

No (once again) the definition of provide means to "make available" the definition of welfare means the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; Together they mean: to make available the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization

"The government is not responsible to PROVIDE you with anything." The founding fathers beg to differ, in the constitution they say "Congress shall have power To... provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" Did you bother to look up the passage? Or did you just go with your assumption that you had the word right?

Health care is available for all. Just go out and purchase some insurance. Are you familiar with the word "denied"? Health insurance is not available to everyone. Period. As much as you claim it to be. There, it's available for you. No its not. Or where does it say they should buy it for you?

Nobody asked that you buy it for me, only that I be allowed to buy it.

The government should make available to everybody the opportunity to pursue anything they desire in life. That is what they just did, they made available to everybody the opportunity to purchase (yes I said purchase, not give, purchase as in BUY) health insurance.

They should do this by allowing free enterprise and by not suffocating people in business with their laws and regulations and rules and taxations. Thats funny, I own a business and I don't feel suffocated by any laws, regulations. rules or taxations.

What business do you own Patty? And exactly how are laws, regulations, rules and taxations suffocating it?

[BJean 16]

Uh oh Leigha, you're trying to bring sense and logic to the debate. That's where the breakdown starts. Because for some it is just the argument that they want. They don't understand the logic or the sense of the health care reform debate. And they do not want to. Don't cloud the discussion with the real merits of it. Just be loud and use all the buzz words that you can think of - even reaching as far back as the Reagan years. That's what Republicans do best - slogans and rethoric! Truth and logic be damned.

Begins to feel a lot like banging your head against the wall.

[tdslf1 0]

Leigh,

Your explaining too much. Tin can brains don't absorb like that. You know who could explain it though? Sarah, the I can't name a book, Palin. They seem to understand her brand of down home garbage.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

RNC rejects joint "civility" statement:

The Republican National Committee has rejected a proposal from its Democratic counterpart to sign a joint “civility” statement, POLITICO has learned.

Various members of the DNC — including Chairman Tim Kaine, Executive Director Jen O’Malley Dillon and Communications Director Brad Woodhouse — contacted their respective RNC counterparts this week in hopes of getting RNC Chairman Michael Steele to co-sign a document with Kaine that, in part, called for “elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry.”

“We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior,” read the proposed joint statement, which came at the end of a week that saw acts of vandalism and threats of violence directed at members of Congress from both parties, but mostly aimed at Democrats who voted yes on the health care bill.

Woodhouse told POLITICO that the DNC is “disappointed” that the RNC would not agree to a statement that “would carry a lot weight symbolically.”

“It’s very disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Chairman Steele, who authored a fundraising presentation that depicted the president as the Joker, the speaker of the House as Cruella de Vil, raised money online showing the speaker on fire and said she should be put before a firing squad would refuse to do a joint statement with Chairman Kaine to ratchet down the rhetoric and condemn the violence and threats which Republican supporters have engaged in since the passage of health reform,” Woodhouse said.

“Chairman Steele’s own overheated rhetoric and the Republican Party’s fear tactics have contributed to an environment of anger and frustration that is unhealthy and counterproductive to our political dialogue,” he added. “Rather than take responsibility for their own actions, Chairman Steele not only refused the good-faith offer of issuing a joint statement, he then sent his spokesperson out to go on the attack in a breathtaking display of chutzpah and hypocrisy. Chairman Kaine and Democrats will continue to work towards a civil and responsible debate on the issues of the day even as Republicans continue to be pulled farther and farther towards the radical extreme.”

Their unwillingness to sign this statement implies that they condone this extremist behavior. Why am I not surprised?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

More evidence that those on the right condone violence:

HANNITY: When you think about the vast majorities that they have in Congress and they had to bribe, backroom deals, corruption, that’s all because the tea party movement, the people — all these Tim McVeigh wannabes here.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

Tim McVeigh's handywork:

from dailykos

[BJean 16]

Holy Mother of God. Even they have topped themselves this time. I've always said they would stop at nothing but I guess I thought there were some level-headed folks who could keep it from getting too out of hand. I was wrong about that.