“Promote the General Welfare” not “Provide Welfare” - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Financial Forum Economics and Precious Metals

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Welfare State: Welfare vs Largess gallard Political News and Discussion 20 08-17-2013 10:50 AM
Excellent idea from the UK: On welfare, have more kids, loose welfare aquensis Political News and Discussion 17 10-08-2012 10:37 PM
what is the "General Welfare" Liberty Valance Political News and Discussion 2 05-03-2012 12:47 AM
People on welfare, in general... Prepping Political News and Discussion 57 10-11-2011 08:10 PM
Welfare Dobbs Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 59 09-28-2011 10:39 PM
Less welfare! SamboRoberts Australia and New Zealand 3 09-02-2011 04:04 AM
US Welfare map? bulrush Financial Forum 6 07-19-2010 03:43 PM
Rob Natelson: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause MisterMak General Discussion 0 11-22-2009 01:37 AM
Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be kajunman1 General Discussion 29 04-14-2008 03:35 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2012, 02:03 AM
.30-06 .30-06 is offline
Monkey Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The People's Republic of California
Posts: 241
Thanks: 321
Thanked 219 Times in 103 Posts
Default “Promote the General Welfare” not “Provide Welfare”



Advertise Here

I had taken a 2 month hiatus from SB, but came across this video and had to share it. This vet has it right.


http://resolutedetermination.wordpre...ovide-welfare/
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to .30-06 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-05-2012, 07:01 AM
merlinfire's Avatar
merlinfire merlinfire is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,178
Thanks: 32,953
Thanked 45,415 Times in 13,307 Posts
Default

It's a good thing we provide for the truly destitute. The problem is that we have poorly administered program with bad rules. Significant reform is necessary. But I think basic programs to sustain the lives of the poor is needed, and the cost (once the healthy, able moochers are cut off) are relatively minimal.

The big dollars right now are social security, and medicare: both major drivers of deficits. The aging baby boomer generation is using more, living longer, and due to the almighty power of the vote, politicians are unwilling to provide serious reform in those categories, only nip around the edges.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to merlinfire For This Useful Post:
Old 11-05-2012, 07:10 AM
dontbuypotteryfromme dontbuypotteryfromme is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far north queensland Australia
Posts: 20,242
Thanks: 4,427
Thanked 15,831 Times in 8,399 Posts
Default

All retoric no substance.

It was good retoric though.
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-05-2012, 07:46 AM
Harmless Drudge's Avatar
Harmless Drudge Harmless Drudge is offline
Weed 'em and reap
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: A once-free nation
Age: 41
Posts: 29,378
Thanks: 237,790
Thanked 122,409 Times in 24,208 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme View Post
All retoric no substance.

It was good retoric though.
The problem is simple, yet everyone wants a complex 57-point plan with "specifics".

When a fat guy walks into the room ans blocks the TV, you don't enact a 57-point plan to inconvenience all of the other people in the room. No, you get Fatty's big butt out the way. But when Fatty is the government and the TV is success, everyone in the room is expected to roll on the floor and cling to the rafters just to catch a glimpse.

The solution doesn't need specifics. It's not government's role to find specifics. The problem, in fact, is that government is trying to impose TOO MANY specifics. All that needs to happen is to get the government's fat, specific butt out of the path to success.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Harmless Drudge For This Useful Post:
Old 11-05-2012, 04:35 PM
dontbuypotteryfromme dontbuypotteryfromme is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far north queensland Australia
Posts: 20,242
Thanks: 4,427
Thanked 15,831 Times in 8,399 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmless Drudge View Post
The problem is simple, yet everyone wants a complex 57-point plan with "specifics".

When a fat guy walks into the room ans blocks the TV, you don't enact a 57-point plan to inconvenience all of the other people in the room. No, you get Fatty's big butt out the way. But when Fatty is the government and the TV is success, everyone in the room is expected to roll on the floor and cling to the rafters just to catch a glimpse.

The solution doesn't need specifics. It's not government's role to find specifics. The problem, in fact, is that government is trying to impose TOO MANY specifics. All that needs to happen is to get the government's fat, specific butt out of the path to success.
So intead of laying out the problem and then laying out a considered aproach to fix that problem.

You just want a "win one for the gipper" speech. Because that is more effective.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2012, 06:33 PM
maat's Avatar
maat maat is offline
Frreeedommm
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 57
Posts: 3,827
Thanks: 3,285
Thanked 6,660 Times in 2,440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlinfire View Post
It's a good thing we provide for the truly destitute. The problem is that we have poorly administered program with bad rules. Significant reform is necessary. But I think basic programs to sustain the lives of the poor is needed, and the cost (once the healthy, able moochers are cut off) are relatively minimal.

The big dollars right now are social security, and medicare: both major drivers of deficits. The aging baby boomer generation is using more, living longer, and due to the almighty power of the vote, politicians are unwilling to provide serious reform in those categories, only nip around the edges.
Both welfare and SS/medicare are not enumerated duties of the federal government. Both are doing great harm to this country.

It is not enough to attempt to control a virus, you have to eradicate them. Just like a drug, socialist programs start out feeling good, but the addiction and side affects are not worth the high. Worse, is the hardship of detoxing, but you do it because it has to be done.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to maat For This Useful Post:
Old 11-05-2012, 09:21 PM
merlinfire's Avatar
merlinfire merlinfire is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,178
Thanks: 32,953
Thanked 45,415 Times in 13,307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maat View Post
Both welfare and SS/medicare are not enumerated duties of the federal government. Both are doing great harm to this country.

It is not enough to attempt to control a virus, you have to eradicate them. Just like a drug, socialist programs start out feeling good, but the addiction and side affects are not worth the high. Worse, is the hardship of detoxing, but you do it because it has to be done.
SS however, is being funded through sequestered taxes. Problem is, you could totally eliminate SS and you wouldn't save that much money unless you made people keep paying SS taxes even though SS wouldn't exist. Medicare too. Now if you talk reduce the programs and reduce the taxes, or eliminate the programs and eliminate the taxes, that's a discussion you can have.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to merlinfire For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 08:16 AM
Harmless Drudge's Avatar
Harmless Drudge Harmless Drudge is offline
Weed 'em and reap
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: A once-free nation
Age: 41
Posts: 29,378
Thanks: 237,790
Thanked 122,409 Times in 24,208 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme View Post
So intead of laying out the problem and then laying out a considered aproach to fix that problem.

You just want a "win one for the gipper" speech. Because that is more effective.
Asking government to solve poverty is like asking a puppy to clean up its own poop. It's not just that the puppy can't, but that the puppy created the mess in the first place.

From the late 18th century to the mid-20th century, the poverty rate dropped consistently. Only since the "War on Poverty" has it stagnated.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Harmless Drudge For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 08:25 AM
dontbuypotteryfromme dontbuypotteryfromme is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far north queensland Australia
Posts: 20,242
Thanks: 4,427
Thanked 15,831 Times in 8,399 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmless Drudge View Post
Asking government to solve poverty is like asking a puppy to clean up its own poop. It's not just that the puppy can't, but that the puppy created the mess in the first place.

From the late 18th century to the mid-20th century, the poverty rate dropped consistently. Only since the "War on Poverty" has it stagnated.
Well no. A puppy physically can't clean up its own poop. It dosen't have the oposable thumbs to make the pooper scooper work.

Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2012, 09:09 AM
Patouzorus's Avatar
Patouzorus Patouzorus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Thanks: 70
Thanked 121 Times in 52 Posts
Default

I felt like I need to give my 2 cents..

Before I get blasted to hell for this, let's just not forget something here:

Welfare and medicare are not things that should be abolished.

Several countries around the world function very well with systems which provide help and assistance to the poor and the sick, for FREE.

I agree that something else should be done, like working hard to reintegrate people on welfare into the workforce (even if just part-time, they could contribute some time). Cutting them off and leaving them to die is however NOT an option we should be considering at this time.

I think some people here are missing the point that what people SHOULD be aiming for is not a "me me me!" behavior but rather one of compassion and behavior.

That "I want" behavior has brought us this far, and look how well the world is doing... It seems some people really want a dystopian future rather than working towards a better world.

That's just my opinion but I don't think basically letting people die is the proper way to operate if survival isn't immediately compromised.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patouzorus For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 09:24 AM
Pinhead's Avatar
Pinhead Pinhead is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,722
Thanks: 16,504
Thanked 2,814 Times in 1,030 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patouzorus View Post
Several countries around the world function very well with systems which provide help and assistance to the poor and the sick, for FREE.


Free?

How is that even possible? Whether their governments pay for those programs through taxes or whether they pay for it through deficit spending (inflation), they are, most assuredly, not FREE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmless Drudge
From the late 18th century to the mid-20th century, the poverty rate dropped consistently. Only since the "War on Poverty" has it stagnated.
THIS.

If you really have "compassion" for the poor, you would want to get government out of the way, as they simply make the situation worse.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Pinhead For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 09:34 AM
Patouzorus's Avatar
Patouzorus Patouzorus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Thanks: 70
Thanked 121 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinhead View Post


Free?

How is that even possible? Whether their governments pay for those programs through taxes or whether they pay for it through deficit spending (inflation), they are, most assuredly, not FREE.
Yes, free. If I go right now, trip and break my arm, I can walk to any hospital and provided I have my health insurance card with me, I will get x-rays and cast done, free of charge.

If you assumed I meant "free" as in it costs nothing to no one, it's clear you are trying to stir up an argument lol.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2012, 09:37 AM
Boredom's Avatar
Boredom Boredom is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,840
Thanks: 2,593
Thanked 3,175 Times in 1,316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patouzorus View Post
Yes, free. If I go right now, trip and break my arm, I can walk to any hospital and provided I have my health insurance card with me, I will get x-rays and cast done, free of charge.

If you assumed I meant "free" as in it costs nothing to no one, it's clear you are trying to stir up an argument lol.
Tanstaafl. Care to elaborate on the various taxes you pay to afford this free stuff?

Familiarity with the Canadian system makes your claim laughable.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Boredom For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 09:42 AM
Patouzorus's Avatar
Patouzorus Patouzorus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Thanks: 70
Thanked 121 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Yes, we pay taxes. I realize that. For the greater good.

This is exactly the type of behavior I am talking about. "ME ME ME!" before anyone else, ready to screw people over to have more money.

It's fine to be sick in the US, if you have money. The system in place encourages you to have a lot of money, no matter what the cost, and I feel many are failing to grasp this isn't the way it should be as it forces us to throw away some moral values in order to get more money.

No?

It seems nearly everyone on this thread would be willing to throw their neighbor/father/mother/sister/brother/child/cousin/family/person under the bus and ditch him if he had an accident of some sort requiring healthcare and he had no insurance.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Patouzorus For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 09:43 AM
brewmaster1918's Avatar
brewmaster1918 brewmaster1918 is offline
spoonmaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 15,334
Thanks: 83,852
Thanked 60,822 Times in 13,831 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patouzorus
I felt like I need to give my 2 cents..

Before I get blasted to hell for this, let's just not forget something here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patouzorus View Post
If you assumed I meant "free" as in it costs nothing to no one, it's clear you are trying to stir up an argument lol.
I'm not a rocket scientist, and I'm not a Private Detective, I'm just an innocent bystander. When I put your messages together, it looks like your intention is to create an argument.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2012, 09:45 AM
Captain Worley's Avatar
Captain Worley Captain Worley is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 570
Thanks: 163
Thanked 669 Times in 279 Posts
Default

Umm...Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the Taxing and Spending Clause:

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;

I didn't know it was worded that way until someone pointed it out.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2012, 10:06 AM
sierra skier's Avatar
sierra skier sierra skier is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,026
Thanks: 24,565
Thanked 27,326 Times in 7,386 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patouzorus View Post
Yes, free. If I go right now, trip and break my arm, I can walk to any hospital and provided I have my health insurance card with me, I will get x-rays and cast done, free of charge.

If you assumed I meant "free" as in it costs nothing to no one, it's clear you are trying to stir up an argument lol.
We spend $10,000 a year or more on medical insurance premiums. I recently had a serious accident and went through the system.

I will be spending at least another $10,000, maybe double that after the insurance has negotiated reduced contract prices and I get to pickup the balance that is owed.

The proposed new system will be even more costly and offer less service wise with poorer efficiency.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sierra skier For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 10:17 AM
Patouzorus's Avatar
Patouzorus Patouzorus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Thanks: 70
Thanked 121 Times in 52 Posts
Default

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Here are the tax rates in Canada.

Depending on how much you make, you can pay much more than 10,000$ per year in taxes over here.

Just took a look at minimum wages between US and Canada and it leaves food for thought..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ages_in_Canada

Overall I think the issue here is in the US the "poor" or "poorer" are getting shortchanged by their own government. No healthcare AND low wages...
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2012, 10:19 AM
RickVA RickVA is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 671
Thanks: 5,252
Thanked 1,147 Times in 418 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Worley View Post
Umm...Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the Taxing and Spending Clause:

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;

I didn't know it was worded that way until someone pointed it out.
I'm not sure the point you were after, but the United States in the constitution refers to the government, not the people or the states. This in no way constitutes spending on welfare, medicare, or any of the other entitlement programs. And didn't Hamilton even write about this later saying that he was not happy with this wording as he wrote it because it could be misinterpreted to include more than the federal government, with the intent being only the federal government.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RickVA For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2012, 10:22 AM
Patouzorus's Avatar
Patouzorus Patouzorus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Thanks: 70
Thanked 121 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickVA View Post
I'm not sure the point you were after, but the United States in the constitution refers to the government, not the people or the states. This in no way constitutes spending on welfare, medicare, or any of the other entitlement programs. And didn't Hamilton even write about this later saying that he was not happy with this wording as he wrote it because it could be misinterpreted to include more than the federal government, with the intent being only the federal government.
Question is : Can a country have general welfare if it's citizens don't?
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net