Sign in to follow this  
lordie

Welfare

Recommended Posts

That's all well on paper, but do not confuse what was written, with how our founding fathers acted, or what they individually intended. The army existed long before the Constitution, and was reassembled within a year of the ratification of the Constitution in order to enforce tax collection and to protect its tax collectors. It failed at the former mainly because there were not enough tax collectors.

The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation for two specific reasons to have a centrally controlled military and to collect taxes so the the central government could effectively act. The need for these was brought out by Shay's Rebellion and by foreign states seeking to divide and conquer the confederation.

At the beginning of the national government it existed as an extension of the state governments and as a means for them to act together. It was not intended by most of the signers to replace the state governments. A state meant a separate country. We were the United Countries of America.

Hamilton was the main architect of the end of individual state power. His frustration with the decentralized nature of the Continental Congress during his time in the military in the revolutionary war brought him to seek a more militarily efficient centralized government. His contributions to our constitution were meant to create a centralized mercantile empire like England at the time. We are lucky Aaron Burr put a musket ball in him. The states were not finally subdued until Lincoln fifty years later in a war to collect taxes. It Hamilton had lived another twenty years and accomplished more of his political machinations the "Civil" war would have never happened, and slavery would still have ended as it did elsewhere without military action. The tariffs alone, if collected, would have crushed the plantations and ended slavery, or they could have been seized, paid for and freed by the national government. The only reason for the war was to solidify a centralized government and eliminate state power to oppose it.

Panpareil, I believe it may have been just a few more than fifty years. But as to the rest, you forgot one thing. The Civil War was only about slavery after it had ended. The Southern Sates had a real problem with not being autonomous, which is why they seceeded. They demanded, and expected to receive, that autonomy. When they realized they weren't autonomous, and were, in fact, accountable to the centralized government, they got a little peeved about that. The Emancipation Proclamation was only the icing, if you will. The cherry on top? Over 50% of non-whites in the South were not slaves, and some, (over 25%) were born free. Some even owned slaves of their own.

The rest? Yeah, that's about right.

Edited by HPSCatBland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamilton's death 1804 - Fort Sumter 1861 = 57 years. Yeah should have rounded up not down.

And I do realize the war was only about slavery to the abolitionists during the war, but was added to the history after the war to make Lincoln look better. Everything he wrote and everything he signed in to law, regulation, or outright order, did not favor the abolishment of slavery one iota. He was also entirely opposed to integration of blacks on an equal level into white society. He instead favored Liberia as the solution.

Before the war the several states interpreted the constitution to allow states to declare federal law unconstitutional if they determined it was so. Thus nullifying the enforcement of any federal law in a state that found it unconstitutional. These nulllifications were generally about tariffs that protected northern industrialists and allowed them to collect higher prices for their goods. In effect redistributing wealth from the south to the north, much the way subsidizing of green energy while regulating carbon energy redistributes wealth from one group of industrialist to another in our present times. In both cases the ultimate financial burden falls on the consumer in the form of inflated prices. The northern states were will to do that in exchange for more jobs, and higher salaries. The south on the other hand just got the inflated prices, and because the tariffs decreased imports it also affected the price of their crops overseas.

As far as autonomy, there would never have been a United States if such a centralized government were ever outright proposed. They were sold a federation of states and instead received a government much like what they had fought to free themselves from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Civil War was only about slavery after it had ended.

WRONG! Some may say that the war was over "state's rights", but it was specifically about the state's right to decide the issue of slavery. Please peruse the following paragraph...

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

The entire text of South Carolina's declaration of secession can be found here- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Edited by Songster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Songster,

You miss the point that there were MORE slaves in the NORTH then in the SOUTH, and the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed those in the SOUTH. Slavery was only PART of the issues, not the whole thing.

In short, you are as WRONG! as you've decided to call my wife. They did hype up the slavery issue AFTER the war ended. After all, history, victors, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providing for the common defense and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity is NOT waging war. It is PREPARING for war, should anything threaten us. Yes, this does mean, occassionally, having to actually wage war, but that is not the ultimate goal.

it is the closest on the list. Where as, taxing and spending, redistributing wealth, etc, all fall loosely under establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Which is topical. I am simply refuting the claim that the federal government is exclusively a war/defense administration agency.

That's all well on paper, but do not confuse what was written, with how our founding fathers acted, or what they individually intended. The army existed long before the Constitution, and was reassembled within a year of the ratification of the Constitution in order to enforce tax collection and to protect its tax collectors. It failed at the former mainly because there were not enough tax collectors.

The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation for two specific reasons to have a centrally controlled military and to collect taxes so the the central government could effectively act. The need for these was brought out by Shay's Rebellion and by foreign states seeking to divide and conquer the confederation.

At the beginning of the national government it existed as an extension of the state governments and as a means for them to act together. It was not intended by most of the signers to replace the state governments. A state meant a separate country. We were the United Countries of America.

Hamilton was the main architect of the end of individual state power. His frustration with the decentralized nature of the Continental Congress during his time in the military in the revolutionary war brought him to seek a more militarily efficient centralized government. His contributions to our constitution were meant to create a centralized mercantile empire like England at the time. We are lucky Aaron Burr put a musket ball in him. The states were not finally subdued until Lincoln fifty years later in a war to collect taxes. It Hamilton had lived another twenty years and accomplished more of his political machinations the "Civil" war would have never happened, and slavery would still have ended as it did elsewhere without military action. The tariffs alone, if collected, would have crushed the plantations and ended slavery, or they could have been seized, paid for and freed by the national government. The only reason for the war was to solidify a centralized government and eliminate state power to oppose it.

well, that is a view, I guess.

Panpareil, I believe it may have been just a few more than fifty years. But as to the rest, you forgot one thing. The Civil War was only about slavery after it had ended. The Southern Sates had a real problem with not being autonomous, which is why they seceeded. They demanded, and expected to receive, that autonomy. When they realized they weren't autonomous, and were, in fact, accountable to the centralized government, they got a little peeved about that. The Emancipation Proclamation was only the icing, if you will. The cherry on top? Over 50% of non-whites in the South were not slaves, and some, (over 25%) were born free. Some even owned slaves of their own.

The rest? Yeah, that's about right.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

I think you are incorrect, though this doesn't account for any Hispanic or Asian populations.. I don't think they would have skewed the results much..

Hamilton's death 1804 - Fort Sumter 1861 = 57 years. Yeah should have rounded up not down.

And I do realize the war was only about slavery to the abolitionists during the war, but was added to the history after the war to make Lincoln look better. Everything he wrote and everything he signed in to law, regulation, or outright order, did not favor the abolishment of slavery one iota. He was also entirely opposed to integration of blacks on an equal level into white society. He instead favored Liberia as the solution.

Before the war the several states interpreted the constitution to allow states to declare federal law unconstitutional if they determined it was so. Thus nullifying the enforcement of any federal law in a state that found it unconstitutional. These nulllifications were generally about tariffs that protected northern industrialists and allowed them to collect higher prices for their goods. In effect redistributing wealth from the south to the north, much the way subsidizing of green energy while regulating carbon energy redistributes wealth from one group of industrialist to another in our present times. In both cases the ultimate financial burden falls on the consumer in the form of inflated prices. The northern states were will to do that in exchange for more jobs, and higher salaries. The south on the other hand just got the inflated prices, and because the tariffs decreased imports it also affected the price of their crops overseas.

As far as autonomy, there would never have been a United States if such a centralized government were ever outright proposed. They were sold a federation of states and instead received a government much like what they had fought to free themselves from.

Lincoln didn't start the war. Sumpter was attacked by the south. The south seceded over slavery issues. (several of the states mention this in their declarations of secession.). Ergo, the war was about slavery. I know historical revision is a popular debate technique, but it is also the reason we so often repeat history.

Songster,

You miss the point that there were MORE slaves in the NORTH then in the SOUTH, and the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed those in the SOUTH. Slavery was only PART of the issues, not the whole thing.

In short, you are as WRONG! as you've decided to call my wife. They did hype up the slavery issue AFTER the war ended. After all, history, victors, etc.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm again..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Songster,

You miss the point that there were MORE slaves in the NORTH then in the SOUTH, and the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed those in the SOUTH. Slavery was only PART of the issues, not the whole thing.

In short, you are as WRONG! as you've decided to call my wife. They did hype up the slavery issue AFTER the war ended. After all, history, victors, etc.

If you want to ignore facts and continue to live in the fantasy world you've created... All I can say is "ignorance is bliss". Edited by Songster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife stole my keyboard:

I'm an incredibly lucky woman.

Youch, you're acting like one of those people who maintains a keg just south of his chest and gets paid $25 an hour to yell at people. We're not here to be condemned, nor are we here to be vindicated, condoned, or ordered around. We're here to share our views, air our opinions, and generally add to the raucous. (That's pronounced ruckus) I understand your need to generally gripe and complain about all "those people" who "take your money" and do whatever the hell they wish with it, but they've been doing that since the day you started paying taxes to a corrupted system anyway, so you can't really logically complain about it without giving credence to the corrupt system you keep feeding, now can you? Chew on that while you formulate a reply.

Well, now I know why you didn't like being called Mr. Tim Bland......there is still some confusion there, it seems..... I don't know, doesn't matter... :smoke:

Great rant! :hi: Loved the part about me! :wub: Well, it really wasn't about me...... No keg, no yelling, and a lot more than $25/hr. Shoot higher next time.

No, it is pronounced rawkiss.

Upon reflection of your post, the one quoted above, do you smell the critical flaw? You proclaim from on high why "we're here" yet you differentiate me from "we're" as if I belong to a different category of people. Predictable nonsense, that! But let's shoot higher. Let me set ya straight there dude/girl/person, the day I stop fighting the good fight against the erosion of my freedoms and property is the day I have none left to transfer to you. Confiscation is like a flower.....it too, shall die.

But you did inadvertently make a valid point......let's repeal the 16th Amendment!!!

I chewed it....it tasted like intolerance.

Tootles,

:mike:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youch, I believe you deliberately misunderstand the point I was trying to make.

AND IF YOU EVEN ATTEMPT TO PRESUME THAT MY HUSBAND MADE THE STATEMENT, I WILL REPORT YOU.

Yes, I can be intolerant. Most humans specialize in that aspect of humanity. I don't, but I can ascribe to it when the situation warrants it. I did not by any means make any valid points inadvertently. I never do anything inadvertently. I absolutely agree we should repeal the 16th amendment. I've believed that for a great number of years.

I was exempting you from the category of people that I was speaking of, in the hopes that you'd see that you have the option of including yourself. It is a personal choice. You are not forced to be part of any discussion here.

I do have one itty-bitty question to ask of you...what part of Georgia are you from? The only people I know that so grossly mispronounce the common language are from Georgia.

By the way, don't you dare ever insult my husband to me again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youch, I believe you deliberately misunderstand the point I was trying to make.

Then stop believing. I don't have the time to waste deliberately misunderstanding. But you've already proved my point by admitting you are intolerant, so it seems I understood perfectly well.

AND IF YOU EVEN ATTEMPT TO PRESUME THAT MY HUSBAND MADE THE STATEMENT, I WILL REPORT YOU.

Go ahead, report me. I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems there are now two of you sharing accounts here....or something.....I don't know, and don't care. All I remember is someone named timothy bland didn't like being called Mr. a while back.....now I'm caught in this weird marital thing, and I think it distracts from the forum. But yes, report me for not knowing you from Adam.

Yes, I can be intolerant.

That was self-evident.

I did not by any means make any valid points inadvertently. I never do anything inadvertently. I absolutely agree we should repeal the 16th amendment.

Since you did not make the direct point at all, much less on purpose, then yes, the point was inadvertent. You were attempting to make another point altogether.

I was exempting you from the category of people that I was speaking of, in the hopes that you'd see that you have the option of including yourself. It is a personal choice. You are not forced to be part of any discussion here.

It is a common trait amongst the intolerant to be so incredibly arrogant as this!!

1. I don't want to be a part of your group.

2. Exempting someone from something is not a successful marketing strategy, unless you are blinded by the incredible arrogance it must take to assume that not being part of your sphere would make people green with envy. Sorry, um, no.

3. Forced to be a part of the discussion? I believe I just blanketed you with my presence...and nobody forced me! And nobody stopped me!

4. Two options....continue to make yourself look bad, or do what most dogs do....kick some grass over that pile and move on!

5. Psst, reminder....this topic isn't about you. And it's not about me.

I do have one itty-bitty question to ask of you...what part of Georgia are you from? The only people I know that so grossly mispronounce the common language are from Georgia.

Again with the insults and intolerance....this time toward the people of the south-eastern United States of America!

"The only people I know...." what a bunch of mule fritters!!! Like my grand pappy used to say down home back in Green Bow, Alabama (thank you very much!), it takes all kinds to make a world (or was it a box of chocolates?), it's just too bad the world has to be made up of such uptight bung holes! Edited, of course....

By the way, do a Bing search for the word 'raucous' and see what pronunciation it gives you.

By the way, don't you dare ever insult my husband to me again.

Well then, to whom shall I insult him? Who is he, again?

Look, dude, sister, whatever, provide value here, by advancing the TOPIC, or obsess over yourself in the more appropriate section of this forum. The TOPIC is WELFARE, and in case your forgot, I'm tired of providing the increasing amounts of it. Moreover, morally and ethically, the chains that dependency creates are abhorrent, and are an antithesis to natural freedom.

But hey, you'd rather talk about you and your spouse (as if anyone has any idea what you are talking about), or you'd rather project upon me your intolerant notions of those who disagree with you in order to create a foil.

This all reminds me of menstruation and contrived foils, but I'm not going there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare has a program for jobs now

it is interesting to see that

but in away ashame to see older americans suffer

they dont make much and won't or don't qualify for any aide . i feel for them

Youch i must applaud you for standing up for yourself and believes. very good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be an issue. My wife stands up for herself and me, then Youch makes very insulting statements, then some applauds HIM for standing up for HIMSELF?

Anyone who reads the above posts and has a heart will see that, while my wife MAY have provoked Youch, she did so only AFTER his apparent insults, so really, EVERYONE is wrong here, and no one is seeing it.

Can't we all just get over ourselves and have a nice, happy discussion? (Myself included)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My abuser just lied to get more foodstamps

and said he was married .

that's just plain fraud . i feel it takes away from those who need it . around here we have help w rent if u get kick out but when women apply they say no . The elderly here or anyway can't afford much food or medicine i think we should take a look at this welfare . and help those who need it

i met a woman who is deaf I'm both ears she said no one will help her because she is smart .i was mad to say the least . and there was my ex (abuser) who goes to welfare and ask for aide and lies about his life . and he gets aide

it isn't fair to those who desperately needs it .

my sis can't even get medicaid even tho she is severaly disabled . . it is just not fair

the other day i was at a store will the elderly was waiting for the bus soak in the rain they waited all day . they didn't get a free ride or even half fare as the law states here .so there they were soak and cold i don't think it is fair to mistreat them .

here were i live disables walk or roll their selves to the store . because the bus keeps saying they are out of funding i met a young girl about 14 her legs are crooked and she has to walk to get groceries

no one helps her . a blind man lives near me he cannot. afford rehab so he taught himself to use a cane and to walk to and throw . he cannot get a ride neither .i was just recently dx w optic neuropathy w pigmentary glaucoma . i was never able to see to drive but if i could i would take the ones mention above to the store .and bring them home .we pick and tease but some one out there is worse off and we only think of our selves . that's sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moderation team is reviewing posts in this thread. We would like to remind everyone to act with civility and proper decorum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was never able to see to drive but if i could i would take the ones mention above to the store .and bring them home .we pick and tease but some one out there is worse off and we only think of our selves . that's sad

One problem with everyone relying on the government for help is that we assume everyone is taken care of, and good deeds are no longer necessary. Society grows cold and we forget how to help each other. You've got a good attitude lordie, a good Christian would also have compassion and help the people you mentioned, but there aren't many good Christians around these days who help the infirmed. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27). I think we get so caught-up with all the "Thou shall not" rules in the bible, that we forget about the "do's". Jesus said; "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.... ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:35-45).

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with everyone relying on the government for help is that we assume everyone is taken care of, and good deeds are no longer necessary. Society grows cold and we forget how to help each other. You've got a good attitude lordie, a good Christian would also have compassion and help the people you mentioned, but there aren't many good Christians around these days who help the infirmed. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27). I think we get so caught-up with all the "Thou shall not" rules in the bible, that we forget about the "do's". Jesus said; "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.... ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:35-45).

historically, good deeds didn't get us as far as welfare has in taking care of the poor. Just sayin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

historically, good deeds didn't get us as far as welfare has in taking care of the poor. Just sayin...

Welfare is a good deed... Also consider that welfare didn't start until the 1930's, so good deeds were all we had for the previous 5916 years. At the start of 1930, our national debt was only $22 billion, and after just 84 years of welfare, our debt is $17 trillion and climbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right, and that is why we now have welfare. We tried the kindness of strangers thing long enough to know it doesn't work.

Also, you must admit that welfare wasn't the only change in US policy around that time. International warfare, led to seeking and trying to maintain superpower status, a long and expensive cold war, and some pretty creative neo imperialism certainly helped drain the coffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What drained the coffers was the cost of government, which morphs into whatever seems to be for our benefit so that it can consume more of what we have and what those who are yet unborn will never get. Our government consumes resources like the world consumes fossil fuels.The home of the rich in our nation is now the counties that surround Washington DC which house our government officials. Our government saviors are nothing more than televangelists, dressing in expensive clothes, driven in limousines and private jets, living in mansions, partying with Hollywood celebrities, while crying ever louder for more money for their good works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What drained the coffers was the cost of government, which morphs into whatever seems to be for our benefit so that it can consume more of what we have and what those who are yet unborn will never get. Our government consumes resources like the world consumes fossil fuels.The home of the rich in our nation is now the counties that surround Washington DC which house our government officials. Our government saviors are nothing more than televangelists, dressing in expensive clothes, driven in limousines and private jets, living in mansions, partying with Hollywood celebrities, while crying ever louder for more money for their good works.

The folks in charge here really need to get a like button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday i was in walmart and an old lady couldn't even reach the chips i got them for her

it was weird everyone walked by and didn't help

i saw welfare people yelling at their kids just to

Get a cell phone card it hit me that . those kids were created so their parents can draw welfare .

they were mean .it was sad people used the system like that .and then i saw old and disabled people left stranded because the local bus again didn't pick them up .it was a weird day .

but it got even weirder as i was going about my day i saw old people walking in the rain .

but some people riding the bus that drive .

i was mad to say the least . I think welfare is good if we use it for good .

i had a neighbor growing up had 13 kids all welfare kids .and then 15 kids the more kids the more welfare .i thought really!!

i was young at the time i didn't know about welfare pays for kids . so as i got older i go if they do that maybe they can help me .i was abused maybe i can get a lawyer or any help they turn me away . their excuse i had no kids and i am not on drugs .the lawyer i went to was legal aide but they wanna charge me 5000 for just looking at my case

i said no .

Because i was a teen at the time and work i guess i didn't qualify for help even tho i was barely able to walk my back muscles was stretch and bruised

my arms and legs had nerve damage .

at the time i thought i could get help they turn me away .years later i tried to get my mom a cell free from the government she didn't qualify .

she only made 495 but she was married so she didn't qualify . which was wrong one of my ex friends said to seperate and then she can get benefits my mom refused . my dad didn't qualify for medicaid because he worked at a ski resort part time .i think it is stupid .that the ones who need it don't get it but the ones who milked it do

why?

i think that there should be help for everyone!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this