Chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Or as James Madison said it much better than I
"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."

But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

---

Hello tom:

Nor is the cop part of government which you and Elliot just adore. They're UNCONSTITUTIONALLY reading our mail, "for our own good". We are the worlds largest jailer, "for our own good". They're torturing people, in our names "for our own good". They are making war on people who never attacked us, "for our own good". Personally, I think attacking people who posed NO THREAT to us, was pretty INSANE - no?

You and your friend the Wolverine, can see the Constitutionality in THOSE things, but you're blind when it comes to the Constitutionality of what really might be "for our own good".

Chris, you are right, right, right... The wingers here are wrong, wrong, wrong, as you so succinctly pointed out.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Or as James Madison said it much better than I
"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."

But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

---

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

Take benevolence from your own pocket . There is no virtue if it is compelled . Compelled benevolence is pure and simple theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisbosco

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

---

You made and interesting quote there "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?" I wonder what part of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty isn't associated with ensuring the health and well being of all citizens. What exactly are the blessings of liberty if not to live a secure life in good health? It is strange that there are those who rely on that constitution for their protection but would deny its blessings to others. I think there might be a crack in the liberty bell

Madison in Federalist 45 made it very clear that decisions regarding the general welfare was STATE and not Federal Govenment's perusal . The powers of the Federal Government were few and enumerated .

Quote:

---

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

---

Madison also said "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".

Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Not nearly as often as you think............

I suspect the mom was watching the kids to protect them from each other, not from stranger danger.

---

To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.

---

I read the article. I'm a mom, have babysat lots and lots of kids since I was 15, and stick to my story. Those kids are in more danger from doing stupid things with and to each other than they are from "whatever danger," etc. She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .

---

Hello again, tom:

That would be so, if that's what we're arguing for... But, we're not. It's your use of the word "massive" that just isn't so. If you wanted to discuss the plan as it really is, we could.. But, it's been evident from the git go, that you, along with your Fox noise machine, want to inflame the issue, and NOT discuss it...

I suppose that would be because if you REALLY debated what's really being considered, you'd LOSE in a heartbeat.

excon

PS> Why is it, that you have no objection to MASSIVE government handouts to business?? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE increase in police power the Patriot Act gave the government?? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE footprint this country is taking in the Middle East?

I know why. That's because you're very selective about WHICH massive government program you support. Some of 'em, you think are pretty cool, doncha?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

---

You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.

---

Good grief! You must be male.

Have you ever ridden a school bus that picks up in a subdivision or even rural area? The bus doesn't stop at every house. There are designated pick-up places. Children from various homes meet in those places to wait for the bus. Rare is a child waiting alone. Children standing around together for an hour get bored and can easily get into trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Good grief! You must be male.

---

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Have you ever ridden a school bus that picks up in a subdivision or even rural area? The bus doesn't stop at every house. There are designated pick-up places. Children from various homes meet in those places to wait for the bus. Rare is a child waiting alone. Children standing around together for an hour get bored and can easily get into trouble.

---

Never said they couldn't get bored and get into trouble, but I guarantee those parents first concern is not their children being "bored." That's something I would expect a dad might think of first, but not a mom. Yeah, I don't want to leave my kids at a bus stop for an hour because they might get bored. Good grief indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What does that have to do with anything?

---

Your reasoning.

Quote:

---

Never said they couldn't get bored and get into trouble, but I guarantee those parents first concern is not their children being "bored."

---

I'm tempted to call her and find out. Bored kids dare each other to do stupid things like dash across the road in front of an approaching car, several gang up on one, sticks or stones get picked up and thrown first at road signs or tree trunks and then at each other... kids have very fertile imaginations.

I looked up the demographics of the township she lives in -- primarily white (non-Hispanic), German or Dutch heritage, high school grads who work in construction or office jobs, one or two kids per family that are in primary or middle school. If they were on the south side of Chicago, I'd worry about stranger danger and murder and kidnapping, but not in Irving Township. Look at the photo that accompanies the article. She isn't standing there with a gun, but with her arms crossed across her chest, watching them carefully as they hang out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Your reasoning.

---

I just wanted to note that it was you that made this a gender thing by insulting men, and yes I am male. My gender has nothing to do with this though I seem to have more mom instinct on it than you do.

Quote:

---

I'm tempted to call her and find out.

---

By all means do.

Quote:

---

Bored kids dare each other to do stupid things like dash across the road in front of an approaching car, several gang up on one, sticks or stones get picked up and thrown first at road signs or tree trunks and then at each other... kids have very fertile imaginations.

---

Duh? And these parents want to keep their kids safe, whatever the danger.

Quote:

---

If they were on the south side of Chicago, I'd worry about stranger danger and murder and kidnapping, but not in Irving Township.

---

And I used to not worry about my parents being kidnapped and robbed living just outside of Duke, OK (pop. 400) but they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And these parents want to keep their kids safe, whatever the danger.

---

I never said they didn't want to keep them safe. Glad you came around to my way of thinking. (And you insulted me first.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I never said they didn't want to keep them safe.

---

Always moving the goalpost.

Quote:

---

Glad you came around to my way of thinking.

---

It appears to be the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Always moving the goalpost.

---

I said "safe from each other."

Men hate to lose, don't they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I said "safe from each other."

---

Yeah, "to protect them from each other." As in you were dismissing Twinkie's concern on kids being snatched. I'm telling you those parents are thinking about a lot more than protecting the kids from each other... Twinkie's point was relevant.

Quote:

---

Men hate to lose, don't they.

---

Apparently not as much as you do, I've been consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yeah, "to protect them from each other." As in you were dismissing Twinkie's concern on kids being snatched. I'm telling you those parents are thinking about a lot more than protecting the kids from each other... Twinkie's point was relevant.[

---

Kids don't get snatched, especially in rural areas of Michigan. Child snatchings by strangers are rare. If anyone snatches, it's the non-custodial parent, not some stranger. Studies will support me on this.

Quote:

---

I've been consistent.

---

We both have, but I strongly disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Kids don't get snatched, especially in rural areas of Michigan.

---

And retired parents don't get kidnapped and robbed in Duke, OK... or did you miss that?

Quote:

---

Child snatchings by strangers are rare. If anyone snatches, it's the non-custodial parent, not some stranger. Studies will support me on this.

---

And that makes a difference on my point... how? If anything it makes it stronger. All I'm saying is you were dismissive of Twinkie's point which is relevant. Parents, educators, day cares, church nurseries... and child protective services are much more concerned with the overall safety of the child. The dangers of sexual predators and snatchings by whoever are much more of a concern to them than you want to acknowledge for some strange reason.

Quote:

---

We both have, but I strongly disagree with you.

---

Hey, if you think it's all about keeping little Johnny from getting bored then whatever, I give those parents much more credit than that.