I am 23, an American Citizen with government run health care.

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

Grown ups know when to check their emotions at the door though.

Now, how about the Constitutional question I posed? Ever read anything in there that states government has the power to be compassionate with taxpayer money?

Name one thing more fundamental to the welfare of a person or population than health?

reply to post by mental modulator


What he said! Couldnt have said it better..and I will have to say, I quote you on this...lol

reply to post by mental modulator


Uh you should try researching that term.

Hint: it relates to the general welfare of the nation, not the individual.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

reply to post by mental modulator


Freedom.

You are putting modern day definitions to a centuries old clause.

You do know meanings change over time correct?

Try putting some research into the general welfare clause. Go at it with an open mind and you will see how incorrect you are.

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Uh you should try researching that term.

Hint: it relates to the general welfare of the nation, not the individual.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

I did sir researched it fine... Gave you a definition from an a source that specializes in
defining words and their interpretations.

The first word is HEALTH -

for someone who so against the government it is ironic that you quoted members of the government you distrust ( I do to ).

I gave you a definition, cited a term from the document itself and now you do not approve of the definition or the correlation, from the constitution?

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Uh you should try researching that term.

Hint: it relates to the general welfare of the nation, not the individual.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

I did sir researched it fine... Gave you a definition from an a source that specializes in
defining words and their interpretations.

The first word is HEALTH -

for someone who so against the government it is ironic that you quoted members of the government you distrust ( I do to ).

I gave you a definition, cited a term from the document itself and now you do not approve of the definition or the correlation, from the constitution?

reply to post by mental modulator


Just out of curiosity, what was your 1787 source for that definition?

I distrust our CURRENT government.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

HERE IT IS -

- their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other,-

So lets put in place the definition of the word welfare into the claus you cited

their mutual and general welfare (health, happiness and prosperity), binding themselves to assist each other

Would this not mean that each state is obliged to assist in this task?

Why not?

reply to post by mental modulator


You are applying the definition of welfare to the individual, when it refers to the nation.

What was the source for your definition of welfare using health as the first word? Link to it

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Just out of curiosity, what was your 1787 source for that definition?

I distrust our CURRENT government.

I should ask you that?

I gave you a definition that is concurrent with my argument and you are attacking semantics.

The word health is synonymous with welfare as it is in the definition.

reply to post by mental modulator


So you have no source.

You are applying a modern day definition to a centuries old term .

Do you not see the flaw in your argument with that?

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Just out of curiosity, what was your 1787 source for that definition?

I distrust our CURRENT government.

I should ask you that?

I gave you a definition that is concurrent with my argument and you are attacking semantics.

The word health is synonymous with welfare as it is in the definition.

I give the floor to Mental Modulator, *me taps her stick on the ground*
Here, here and well done!

You brought up the subject, Aftermath, and now you can't back it up. But Im glad I can give over the floor to someone with better knowledge of it than myself

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


uh, I can back up each and every one of my opinions. I am not the one who is unaware that words change meanings over time.

I simply asked for his definition of the word welfare as used in 1787 in the Constitution.

He failed to provide his source because he doesnt have one.

Ahem.

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.

SOURCE:www.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator

 

You are applying the definition of welfare to the individual, when it refers to the nation.

What was the source for your definition of welfare using health as the first word? Link to it

Well what is the nation but a collection of INDIVIDUALS?
The nation is the entire unit is a collection of individuals.

www.merriam-webster.com...
b.nation -noun - a community of people...

PEOPLE


Welfare
en.wiktionary.org...

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

uh, I can back up each and every one of my opinions. I am not the one who is unaware that words change meanings over time.

I simply asked for his definition of the word welfare as used in 1787 in the Constitution.

He failed to provide his source because he doesnt have one.

As you said, words can change meanings over time. Think about that for awhile

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Ahem.

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.

SOURCE:www.thefreedictionary.com...

It could not be any plainer than this. And I dont think these words will change their meaning over time.

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

uh, I can back up each and every one of my opinions. I am not the one who is unaware that words change meanings over time.

I simply asked for his definition of the word welfare as used in 1787 in the Constitution.

He failed to provide his source because he doesnt have one.

DO you have one?

Christ that was 200 + years ago

But right now your argument is based on that notion?

A definition of a word that differs from todays definition?

We are a nation of people.

and many of our people are experiencing dis EASE of general welfare-

Earlier you said we all must obey the constitution even if we don't agree with it...



[edit on 17-8-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Thanks for proving my point.

Applying modern day definitions to centuries old terms simply because it fits your argument is absurd.

The words and writings of the people who actually signed the document prove your application of todays meanings to their words to be just plain wrong.

Laughable yet still wrong.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


You dont think any words change meaning over time, or just the ones that fit within your belief system?