Charity: Not in the Constitution

[chestnut]

Fair Tax would be the way to go. Those who spend the most get taxed the most.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Go ahead.

(Wondering why MT feels he needs my permission to discuss something)

Mare Tranquillity as in MARE, or female of the specie, please.

It was your idea to discuss what we'd do when something is declared un-constitutional. I was intending to discuss with you if you were amiable. I was trying to be polite in my question to you.

 

[top gun]

And the Preamble still isn't a command that govt do this or not do that. It has no legal effect.

It's in there for a reason my friend and you know that.

If it had no purpose the Founding Fathers wouldn't have taken all that time to put it right up at the front. It's the overview of their intent. When we look at laws we often look at what's called "the spirit" of the law. This is a time honored tradition in the courtroom.

Comes in handy in the broader context as well...

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's in there for a reason my friend and you know that.

If it had no purpose the Founding Fathers wouldn't have taken all that time to put it right up at the front. It's the overview of their intent. When we look at laws we often look at what's called "the spirit" of the law. This is a time honored tradition in the courtroom.

Comes in handy in the broader context as well...

Yup, it's there for the times when the letter of the law isn't clear. Unfortunately for big-govt liberals, the letter of thinngs like the 10th amendment, Commerce Clause, so-called "Welfare Clause", etc., aren't unclear at all, so the Preamble gives no help to their interpretation.

Charity is not in the Consitution. Furthermore, no government is capable of charity, no matter what document it may be in. All government can do, is forcibly take from one person and give to another. Net "charrity" is zero... except for the fact that the govt just violated someone's basic rights, so net effect of such an act is NEGATIVE.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There's a reason why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, left "charity" strictly out of it.

Yeah....'cause they never imagined that GREED would become so trendy....​

 

[Dr.Who]

ASPCA dodges the question and tries to find excuses for not answering.

Anyone else want to participate?

If the Supreme Court finds these various big-govt programs (that millions are now depending on to varying degrees, however unwisely) are unconstitutional, what do we do now?

Simple, the states enact replacement programs fast. Right now most of these programs are administered by the states anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

give everyone who was forced to pay for the programs their money back (minus what they received in other government programs that were found to be unconstitutional)

and people learn to put away savings for their old age.


Though I am not sure how I feel about those who are litterally not able to fend for themselves

I like that answer even better than the one I just posted.

But it does show that there are at least two viable answers. How many more?

 

[Dr.Who]

Half comes from the employee, half comes from the employer. So in theory, if there was no S.S., a worker could end up with half the value of the pension he would get now on Social Security.
Now if you look at the lowest paid of the workers (they have little to no disposable income), they are not likely to save enough in their life times to have any kind of a pension; that is why Social Security was implemented in the first place. Not to ensure that poor folks could live comfortably, but to mitigate the effects of poverty. That does not seem to be asking much in comparison to the 427 times the pay that CEOs get compared to the average worker.

Even half of the money PLUS INTEREST would be more than SS plans to dish out.

 

[Dr.Who]

The preamble puts into clear context the true motives behind what the new government plans on doing and why. It's the very spirit of the Constitution.

You are right in theses facts. The preamble tells us the intent of the founders to create a system that would take care of the general welfare of the country. Then the actual list of powers details how they are allowed to do it.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't have the right to buy health insurance. No one would sell me health insurance, not without a big incentive from the government. Were I 40 years younger, then of course they would.

Whether or not someone wants to sell it to you at the cost you want is irrelevant to the question of whether or not you have a right to buy it.

You most certainly have the right to buy it unless someone actively tries to stop you. Only then can you say someone is interfering in your rights.

If you attempt to buy health insurance and no one tries to stop you but you just can't afford it you still have your right.

If the reason that you can't afford it is because the gov has first confiscated half of your income then your right to spend your money as you please has been infringed upon - with due process, except when it is unconstitutional.

 

[Dr.Who]

Fair Tax would be the way to go. Those who spend the most get taxed the most.

That is show percentages work.

A person paying 10% of a higher wage pays more than a person paying 10% of a lower wage bit it is all fair.

 

[Dr.Who]

Mare Tranquillity as in MARE, or female of the specie, please.

It was your idea to discuss what we'd do when something is declared un-constitutional. I was intending to discuss with you if you were amiable. I was trying to be polite in my question to you.

One would think that a person who intentionally confuses the issue of what gender they are would be more understanding of those who are confused.

 

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by dahermit
Half comes from the employee, half comes from the employer. So in theory, if there was no S.S., a worker could end up with half the value of the pension he would get now on Social Security.
Now if you look at the lowest paid of the workers (they have little to no disposable income), they are not likely to save enough in their life times to have any kind of a pension; that is why Social Security was implemented in the first place. Not to ensure that poor folks could live comfortably, but to mitigate the effects of poverty. That does not seem to be asking much in comparison to the 427 times the pay that CEOs get compared to the average worker.

Even half of the money PLUS INTEREST would be more than SS plans to dish out.

Thats right...ignore the most pertinent part of the post. I do not want you to feel uncomfortable.

 

[dahermit]

One would think that a person who intentionally confuses the issue of what gender they are would be more understanding of those who are confused.

Rude. When I evaluate the testimony (not what they say, but how they act), of self-described Christians to determine if they represent what a person who is actually following the one true God would act like, I note such behavior. "...Your righteousness are as filthy rags...". Have a familiar ring?

 

[Dr.Who]

Half comes from the employee, half comes from the employer. So in theory, if there was no S.S., a worker could end up with half the value of the pension he would get now on Social Security.
Now if you look at the lowest paid of the workers (they have little to no disposable income), they are not likely to save enough in their life times to have any kind of a pension; that is why Social Security was implemented in the first place. Not to ensure that poor folks could live comfortably, but to mitigate the effects of poverty. That does not seem to be asking much in comparison to the 427 times the pay that CEOs get compared to the average worker.

For most people even half of what they paid in plus interest would be more than what social security would pay them.

For those who are so poor that their contribution does not amount to enough there are other ways to mitigate the effects of poverty that are constitutional. The traditional way, and not the only way, is for parents to have a good relationship with their children who then take care of them in their old age.

Is that better?