George Soros rewriting the US Constitution

[Yarddawg]

To be perfectly honest, IMO we should abolish welfare in its entirety. If you don't work, you don't eat. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing the money that I paid into this joke of a system paying for those that are too damn lazy to go find some form of employment. Not to mention that when I see these people in line at the grocery store paying for their items with welfare checks and food stamps, are eating better than I can afford!

I said it before, and I will say it again...This world owes you NOTHING!

[Jakeiscrazy]

To be perfectly honest, IMO we should abolish welfare in its entirety. If you don't work, you don't eat. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing the money that I paid into this joke of a system paying for those that are too damn lazy to go find some form of employment. Not to mention that when I see these people in line at the grocery store paying for their items with welfare checks and food stamps, are eating better than I can afford!

I said it before, and I will say it again...This world owes you NOTHING!

[CCFan]

But who do you seriously expect to pay for such things?

Amazing how theres always a few trillion for wars and a few trillion for tax cuts for the rich, but everyone is very budget conscious when it comes to helping middle and lower class people isn't it?

2011 - Approx. $964 Billion on defense... ~ $793 billion on pensions... ~$882 billion on healthcare... $495 billion on welfare... $60 billion on "protection"... so between protection and defense - $1.025 trillion... vs. $2.170 trillion for pensions, healthcare and welfware... you tell me which ones are social programs. (Hint - we could trim $1 trillion from those programs combined and almost fund our entire defense budget.) Looks amazingly like socialism to me, since those are "social" porgrams... Our national defense is the *ONLY* thing the federal gov should be spending money on, in my opinion. (Source here so you don't have to take my word for it...)

[gunderwood]

...and would certainly guarantee the "welfare of the people" under Constitution v1.0

It says promote the general welfare, not provide or guarantee, so NO, such a scheme is not Constitutional under v1.0.

In fact I believe removing the three greatest pressures facing humans (if we were to use something like Maslows hierarchy) would free up major cash for new spending and jobs.

Funny how successful people usually define it exactly the opposite. They usually talk about their troubles and the pressure as motivation to do better and as improving their character. Funny how some of the most useless people were those who grew up wanting nothing, eh?

...the idea of "freedom" is no consolation when you're homeless and hungry.

I'd take freedom everyday of the week including Sunday. Only slaves have food and shelter not of their doing, but lack liberty. Franklin was right:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Interestingly enough, those to do will find out they actually secure neither.

Oh well, better to improve this country than flee to another.

It isn't an improvement, it is an attack on the very ideals which made this country what it is.

[Kreutz]

...and would certainly guarantee the "welfare of the people" under Constitution v1.0

It says promote the general welfare, not provide or guarantee, so NO, such a scheme is not Constitutional under v1.0.

yes, shelter, food, and medical care would certainly "promote the general welfare". Omitted that one word.

Funny how successful people usually define it exactly the opposite. They usually talk about their troubles and the pressure as motivation to do better and as improving their character. Funny how some of the most useless people were those who grew up wanting nothing, eh?

My gross income in 2010 was $189,891; I barely graduated high school and went to college on the GI Bill and financial aid, if not for the help i got I could never have afforded college and would not be as successful as I am today. Its only fair I want others to get the opportunities I did.

I'd take freedom everyday of the week including Sunday. Only slaves have food and shelter not of their doing, but lack liberty. Franklin was right:

I'm guessing you've never gone to sleep hungry? For weeks at a time? It sucks and theres nothing ennobling about it.

incidentally, we are all "slaves" to our physical needs and in a wider sense slaves to our societies. Freedom is illusory unless you're a hunter gatherer living alone. Otherwise you live in a society which by its very nature disallows freedom.

It isn't an improvement, it is an attack on the very ideals which made this country what it is.

What "ideals" save profit? This country was founded on one ideal; making money. It began as a chartered investment corporation. To this day America is basically a gigantic shopping mall whose sole credo is CONSUME.

If you consider that great, so be it.

[TheGodfather]

This country was founded on one ideal; making money.

When you say that you barely graduated high school, was History one of your weak points by any chance?

[Taggure]

I wrote these years ago, and they're still valid today:

1. You have the right to defend yourself by all means necessary against all conflicts.

2. You have a right to find food.

3. You have a right to find shelter.

4. You have the right to be left in peace.

5. You have a right to reproduce.

6. You have the right to an opinion, and express your emotions.

7. You have a right to have a dream/wish/goal.

8. You have a right to have faith w/o challenge.

9. You have the right to wander unfettered.

10. You have the right to group w/ others with like-minded ideals w/o conflict.

I can agree with this

The key here is self responsibility and not depending on others to provide for you.

[WRW]

This country was founded on one ideal; making money.

When you say that you barely graduated high school, was History one of your weak points by any chance?

Well, by not having to pay those oppressive taxes they got to keep more of that money...but that makes not being taxed oppressively one of the ideals.

[TheGodfather]

This country was founded on one ideal; making money.

When you say that you barely graduated high school, was History one of your weak points by any chance?

Well, by not having to pay those oppressive taxes they got to keep more of that money...but that makes not being taxed oppressively one of the ideals.

There was more to this country's founding than just money and those darn taxes.

[jsharlan]

The Revolution wasn't really about money, at least not for the American colonists. The British government was in debt after the Seven Years War and wanted to squeeze the colonies to raise revenue. The Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Mutiny Act, Tea Act, those were all just a catalysis for the building of resentment towards England, the real underlying issue was always the fundamental difference in philosophy of rule. The colonists believed in self governing, they believed in their local legislative bodies. They believed that tax and policy should come from their state legislative committees, the recruitment of soldiers should be handled by their local communities and not by impressment, they believed the constitution should be a written document of firm rules and not the unwritten flexible, changing set of principles that governed England. They believed in an actual government representation, not a virtual one. The Americans envisioned the empire at the time as a federation of commonwealths all tied together by loyalty to the king.

Any of this starting to sound familiar? Our country was born in opposition of a controlling central authority that ignored local legislative bodies and imposed its will unilaterally. How we have come full circle.

[Reverenddel]

People, we're ice skating up hill. Kreutz has his belief, he's unwilling, or unable to vary, to accept Good sense, Valid Historical Proof, and Logical Deductive Reasoning. Just agree to disagree, and let him sit in his own process.

His compassion will be his undoing. His empathy will be his downfall.

For in the end? Those drowning pull down those who swim to rescue... And you cannot save all the kittens.

[gunderwood]

yes, shelter, food, and medical care would certainly "promote the general welfare". Omitted that one word.

No, the general welfare clause (which is really the power to tax and spend which the preamble summarizes as such), was very narrowly interpreted until the 20th century.

The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

Madison's view was the dominate view and was upheld by the courts until 1936. It's absurd to suggest that a general preamble statement summarizing the governments power to tax and spend grants it powers to tax and spend which exceed its enumerated powers...particularly since the 10ths ratification should have further nixed any such interpretation.

Funny how successful people usually define it exactly the opposite. They usually talk about their troubles and the pressure as motivation to do better and as improving their character. Funny how some of the most useless people were those who grew up wanting nothing, eh?

My gross income in 2010 was $189,891;

IIRC, you work for yourself so that amount technically includes your benefits right as an employer would pay medical/401k/etc. on top of normal wages? Unless you get benefits above and beyond that from an employer, around NOVA that's just a bit above average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-in ... ted_States

The top three are right around the government and range $100-$110k, but benefits packages often add $50k+ in actual value and substantially more since those aren't taxed. That was in 2008 and seems to be an annual growth rate of $3-4k, so the average for 2010 (including benefits for a more fair comparison) is probably closer to $170k. Don't forget that that is the average! It puts you in the upper middle class and doing well for sure, but I'd hardly call that rich around here. Compared to the rest of the country it is a lot, but then again their cost of living is much less.

I don't think you will be getting any interviews from the WSJ or can quit working anytime soon.

I barely graduated high school and went to college on the GI Bill and financial aid, if not for the help i got I could never have afforded college and would not be as successful as I am today. Its only fair I want others to get the opportunities I did.

The GI bill is a benefit of employment which really isn't any different from a company providing health care or a car or a retirement package. Others have the opportunities, no one is standing in their way to do what they wish (expect the socialists of course). If they want to join the military and serve they will too have the ability to use the GI bill. That's a far cry from free food, health care, and a house. It's just the government fulfilling their employment contract just like a company who also has a education package must (most do around here).

Opportunity doesn't mean free or without sacrifice to accomplish. When you legislate what I can and can not do you are restricting my liberty and opportunities, not promoting them.

I'd take freedom everyday of the week including Sunday. Only slaves have food and shelter not of their doing, but lack liberty. Franklin was right:

I'm guessing you've never gone to sleep hungry? For weeks at a time? It sucks and theres nothing ennobling about it.

I make a lot now, but growing up there were times we qualified for government programs. My dad worked hard and pulled himself up and made a better life for us. I hope to do the same. WTF does this have to do with anything? I didn't begrudge those with more than I had then, I don't now and I'd definitely rather be poor and free than a slave and wealthy.

incidentally, we are all "slaves" to our physical needs

Yes, but that is a fact of nature. We each work against it and depending on how hard we work and what decisions we make determines how well we do.

and in a wider sense slaves to our societies. Freedom is illusory unless you're a hunter gatherer living alone. Otherwise you live in a society which by its very nature disallows freedom.

You apparently don't understand the concept of this country. The people who came here from Europe did so to flee such slavery (it took many forms). They did choose freedom over comforts. Over and over again we made that choice. It's amazing how fast we subdued most of the continent after throwing off the British yoke, but it certainly wasn't because we expected an easy life where everything was provided to us. No, we went despite the hardships.

You also apparently don't understand freedom and rights since you are equating it with anarchy. Our government was only to secure our rights from those who would take them by force and to provide an third party arbitrator when disputes arose. We created a national defense to secure them from outsiders, we have LE/justice system to secure them from each other, and we have the Bill of Rights to put the government on notice it can not legally violate them either.

Liberty and ethics are not separate concepts, per se. Liberty is not doing whatever you want with no consequences; in fact even nature teaches us this for we can not meet our natural needs without proper effort. Liberty is freedom of action and reaping the consequences of that action, for better or worse. The restrictions our society originally put on liberty were simply restrictions to avoid one persons liberty from violating another.

The right to life is just a specific expression of that liberty and yes, we put consequences on actions which unjustly deny that right to others. I say unjustly because things like SD carry no such negative consequences (or at least shouldn't in a free society) because SD is just defending ones right to life against another who wishes to take it. Theft is restricted because it denies the liberty of your property, etc.

Yes, societies restrict actions to some extend or at least provide consequences for those actions. However, liberty is freedom of action so long as your actions aren't denying that same freedom to others. A free society is not anarchy. That's hardly an illusion.

[quote="Kreutz"

It isn't an improvement, it is an attack on the very ideals which made this country what it is.

What "ideals" save profit? This country was founded on one ideal; making money. It began as a chartered investment corporation. To this day America is basically a gigantic shopping mall whose sole credo is CONSUME.

If you consider that great, so be it.[/quote]
No, those are not the ideals (as I explained a bit above). You have freedom of action so long as you are not taking actions which deny that freedom to another, and you make good choices, you will reap the benefits of those choices. If that profits you, then so be it. Profit is far more than money. I've certainly profited from actions which made me no money...in fact sometimes I profited from actions which lost me money, but I gained knowledge and experience which was far more valuable (to me) than the money.

Consumption is what the government wants to replace the ideals which founded this country with. Its a distraction to the encroaching slavery. Isn't that exactly what you want? We'll trade you a house (consumption) in exchange for your liberty? We'll give you free stuff if you just give up a bit more freedom?

All you socialists are offering is consumption in exchange for liberty...after all it is better to be fed and a slave than hungry and free, right?

[gunderwood]

His compassion will be his undoing. His empathy will be his downfall.

It is neither compassion nor empathy. Real compassion and empathy cost the giver something, socialism is neither as the whole idea is the people being "compassionate and empathetic" are doing so at others expense.

That's exactly why it's so important...it's not his downfall, it's ours! It's our liberty and freedoms which they are giving away; it is you and I which are being sold into slavery.

[davasmith]

Just my two cents here, but peanut butter is an awesome product. However, peanut butter and jelly is twice as good. That's capitalism. That's intelligence. I don't believe we had to go to a foreigner for their input on what would make peanut butter better.

Oh yeah,
12. we all have the right to shoot bin laden targets!

[gunderwood]

Theft is someone taking the results your of hard earned labor without your permission...socialism is the same bandits getting the government to do the heavy lifting while claiming what they are doing it moral, ethical, and justice.

[Tweaker]

Queue

"Socialism killed 100 million people last century and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

w/ Che Guevarra

Kreutz, you are a very committed liberal/socialist, I will give you that. I would rather that you BE committed, though. Sadly, putting people with whom you disagree in re -education camps is a patented tactic of your ilk and not my own.

I will simply alternate betwixt laughing at your wrongheadedness and shaking my head stupefied at your incalculable failures of logic. Then I'll go reload another 20,000 cartridges for me and my growing number of compatriots.

[OakRidgeStars]

Molon labe!

After three pages, somebody had to say it

Now, carry on.

[gunderwood]

Molon labe!

After three pages, somebody had to say it

Now, carry on.

[Tweaker]

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2011/ ... um=twitter

A pledge of allegiance you may not be familiar wif

[Jumper501]

While I would have never really considered home ownership and food a "right" before, I guess on second thought it should be a right, as the idea of "freedom" is no consolation when you're homeless and hungry.

I consider freedom not a consolation, but the thing to be given up last. I would rather be homeless and hungry and FREE than to be told where to live and what to eat by an oppressive government.