@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
@Art
First of all I never brought up the extra constitutional agencies.
You challenged that the government has the power to do "social spending." This inherently summons a constitutional argument. I demonstrated that extra constitutional agencies do in fact exist and exist under an interpretation of section 8. You are challenging the power of government to do "social spending," but you continue to fail to realize what an interpretation like that would mean across the board.
You cannot have it both ways.
Baldimo wrote:
I mentioned cutting funding in SS to people who are not of retirement age. You brought up extra constitutional agencies and I agreed that we can stand to do without some of them and even cut redundant agencies. You never commented on the SS aspect of my comment. Instead you brought up the Air Force and the USPS. That is a deflection.
We're talking about authority. Your challenging the authority to do something on on the social/domestic side of the government, and expecting that it does not effect the authority to do things on the defense side.
Baldimo wrote:
You are right though the Constitution does not define common defense but it sure as hell outlines it and what it should do. The same cannot be said for social spending.
This term "social spending" you keep using is peculiar. It's not a constitutional term as far as I know. "General welfare" is, and under it, social programs and public interest agencies are well justified.
Baldimo wrote:
Quote:Providing for the general welfare is the basis of social programs. If you don't believe that this is the case, tell me what "promoting the general welfare" means, and give examples of it in our government.
I see providing for the General Welfare as making sure everyone has the same opportunities and availability to the basic necessities of life.
Not a bad start. Does your tiger have teeth?
Baldimo wrote:
I do not think it means the govt has to provide for people. There should be a limit to what the govt can just give people without them doing something for themselves.
There are limits. Presenting the idea that government provides everything is false. Even the people who have every possible social entitlement from the government still don't have everything. Do you know why? Because there is a limit to what they get. Do you understand what a "limit" is? If there are no limits, then you are saying there is nothing more the government could give. Wanna pretend?
Baldimo wrote:
There used to be a saying, Charity starts at home.
Sayings are words. Programs are action. Even a struggling or imperfect program will provide better than a person who can speak a proverb from a comfortable arm chair about charity starting at home--someone else's that is.
A
R
T