Romney insults 47% of americans because they are poor.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] No, it's not. The people grant these privileges to the government not the other way around. The government can only do what is written in the Constitution. The people don't have to worry about this because they hold the power. Amendment nine says not all rights have been listed in the Constitution. Amendment ten says the government can't assume powers. If it's not written down it doesn't have the power to do it. Congress made requirements in order to get welfare. Did the people permit this? No. That's taking promote the general welfare, crossing out the tenth, then specifying in saying anyone who comes down on hard times can use it. Not everyone. This is totally constitutional? Picking and choosing which privileges and amendments to follow? Definitely. It has been this way for hundreds of years now. Still, it doesn't make it right.LOXO7

Have you ever studied the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never held that the government can only do what is specifically written in the Constitution. See the doctrine of Implied Powers and McCulloch V Maryland. Also check out the Commerce Clause which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly when it comes to Congresses's powers.

Did you even bother reading my post? The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this. Seriously try actually studing the constituitiona nd what the courts have said about it, instead of this extremly simplistic interperation you are giving. Just answer me this. What provisons of the constituon do wellfare or these other social programs violate?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

What do either of those have to do with your point? If anything the 9th disproves your point since it refers to rights not specially stated in the Constitution.

white_wolf922

If Wellfare were unconstitutional, someone would have challenged it by now. The fact is those social programs are funded by taxes and Congress can spend tax dollars however it wants unless you can prove that they are doing something unconstitutional with them. Wellfare isn't unconstitutional. An no I wasn't saying the goverment has rights, however your reply was so vague I had no clue what you meant which is why I asked you why you think those amendments support you.

its crazy how america is the rich versus the poor. Thats why this country is going to hell

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

Have you ever studied the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never held that the government can only do what is specifically written in the Constitution. See the doctrine of Implied Powers and McCulloch V Maryland. Also check out the Commerce Clause which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly when it comes to Congresses's powers.

white_wolf922

Did you even bother reading my post? The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this. Seriously try actually studing the constituitiona nd what the courts have said about it, instead of this extremly simplistic interperation you are giving. Just answer me this. What provisons of the constituon do wellfare or these other social programs violate?

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Hmm. We the People of the United States... Article. 3. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court. Who grants this privilege by saying shall? Sh*t! The people also grant a privilege to the supreme court as well. What does this mean? Government power is granted as a privilege by the people. There is an idea out there that the government grants the people privileges. This is back*ss backwards.LOXO7

Did you even bother reading my post? The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this. Seriously try actually studing the constituitiona nd what the courts have said about it, instead of this extremly simplistic interperation you are giving. Just answer me this. What provisons of the constituon do wellfare or these other social programs violate?

Under our current system of government wellfare is neither illegal or unconstitutional. If you want to say it's a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

Did you even bother reading my post? The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this. Seriously try actually studing the constituitiona nd what the courts have said about it, instead of this extremly simplistic interperation you are giving. Just answer me this. What provisons of the constituon do wellfare or these other social programs violate?

white_wolf922

Under our current system of government wellfare is neither illegal or unconstitutional. If you want to say it's a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] The power of the people trumps the powers granted by the people to the supreme court. Why make a government to rule over the people? They had that before the revolutionary war. Why rebel against the British in the first place? The people grants the government powers. That's how complex it gets. Congress violates the Constitution by making specifications for people receiving welfare. This is not providing general welfare. This is manipulating general welfare into unconstitutional specific welfare.LOXO7

Under our current system of government wellfare is neither illegal or unconstitutional. If you want to say it's a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

Under our current system of government wellfare is neither illegal or unconstitutional. If you want to say it's a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.

Abbeten

its crazy how america is the rich versus the poor. Thats why this country is going to hell

Chris_Williams

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] They don't need to revolt. They need to realize their power that are backed by words in the founding documents. More like a restoration. It says everything. Imagine if the three branches were afraid of the upheld treason sentences they would receive if they didn't follow the privileges granted by the people. It would be the complete opposite from what it is today.LOXO7

The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] So what exact process would this entail? Also I hardly think it's treason to uphold a different interpretation of the phrase 'general welfare' than you do.white_wolf922

The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not hard to figure out. People have unalienable rights granted to them by existence. Luckily in America the founders agreed with this. They are life, liberty, and owning property. We the People means we the American citizens, not we the government officials. The people grant privileges to the government that it has to follow. Every time you see the word shall in the constitution that is the people giving this responsibility to the government. If they dishonor their responsibility it is treason. The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government to tweak or create new laws not specified in the previous amendments when it was created. But now as you can see other amendments go beyond the tenth. If you are going to have more amendments beyond the tenth, remove the tenth first. Otherwise it is treason. They did not follow the Constitution.

The Consitution states the people give privilaged powers to the government. It's a document from the people to the government. It's directions. Politicians have turn this idea upside down. Now the government unconstitutionally gives the people privileges, like licences. What?! How can that be when you have an unalienable right called liberty? The government doesn't grant us privileges. That's unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] So what exact process would this entail? Also I hardly think it's treason to uphold a different interpretation of the phrase 'general welfare' than you do.Abbeten

Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.

Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?

They haven't limited who can receive welfare. They've limited under what circumstances a person can receive welfare. There's a key legal difference there.Abbeten

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Instead of the people being afraid of their government the government would be afraid of it's people. I don't care if you (one person) doesn't think it's treasonous if congress doesn't comply with it's only purpose of existence. I care about what congress decides of it.LOXO7

The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not hard to figure out. People have unalienable rights granted to them by existence. Luckily in America the founders agreed with this. They are life, liberty, and owning property. We the People means we the American citizens, not we the government officials. The people grant privileges to the government that it has to follow. Every time you see the word shall in the constitution that is the people giving this responsibility to the government. If they dishonor their responsibility it is treason. The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government to tweak or create new laws not specified in the previous amendments when it was created. But now as you can see other amendments go beyond the tenth. If you are going to have more amendments beyond the tenth, remove the tenth first. Otherwise it is treason. They did not follow the Constitution.

The Consitution states the people give privilaged powers to the government. It's a document from the people to the government. It's directions. Politicians have turn this idea upside down. Now the government unconstitutionally gives the people privileges, like licences. What?! How can that be when you have an unalienable right called liberty? The government doesn't grant us privileges. That's unconstitutional.

I'm the one speaking in vague terms? I'm not the one who misinterprets the Constitution. I'm not the one who decides to agree with whatever the government says. I'm trying to know my rights so when drones start to fly over our cities I can be there to stand up for our rights and say this is wrong. And you can be there to obey. Because you are talking like you are oblivious.

Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.

Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?

LOXO7

You have some really disjointed ideas:?

Are you saying you don't need public education because your parents could teach you instead?

The government giving out licences is unconstitional? Where are you getting all these ideas from?

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] Instead of the people being afraid of their government the government would be afraid of it's people. I don't care if you (one person) doesn't think it's treasonous if congress doesn't comply with it's only purpose of existence. I care about what congress decides of it.LOXO7

Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.

Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?

Also I don't think you're reading my posts, because our welfare programs are not by nature 'promoting limited welfare.'

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.

stiggy321

The Constitution is not hard to figure out. People have unalienable rights granted to them by existence. Luckily in America the founders agreed with this. They are life, liberty, and owning property. We the People means we the American citizens, not we the government officials. The people grant privileges to the government that it has to follow. Every time you see the word shall in the constitution that is the people giving this responsibility to the government. If they dishonor their responsibility it is treason. The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government to tweak or create new laws not specified in the previous amendments when it was created. But now as you can see other amendments go beyond the tenth. If you are going to have more amendments beyond the tenth, remove the tenth first. Otherwise it is treason. They did not follow the Constitution.

The Consitution states the people give privilaged powers to the government. It's a document from the people to the government. It's directions. Politicians have turn this idea upside down. Now the government unconstitutionally gives the people privileges, like licences. What?! How can that be when you have an unalienable right called liberty? The government doesn't grant us privileges. That's unconstitutional.

The government is not the people. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are not the people. If they were what would be the point of becoming independent from the king? The king makes the laws, the government makes the laws. Wrong. The people make the law. We the people does not mean we the government. General welfare does not mean only what the government decides on what is general.

That's the ninth amendment. It's about you have more rights that are not written in the Constitution. The tenth is about keeping the federal government small. That it doesn't have the ability to assume powers because they are not written in the Constitution.

Is English your first language? Why place that useless not word in that question? Be direct, like the Constitution. Be direct, like the founding fathers had to be when creating a different government from the monarcy government. They had to be direct, because that was the point of breaking free from it. You guys are the ones being vague. Vague. Let congress decide what they ment. No. The people tell the government what to do. Not the other way around.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Instead of the people being afraid of their government the government would be afraid of it's people. I don't care if you (one person) doesn't think it's treasonous if congress doesn't comply with it's only purpose of existence. I care about what congress decides of it.LOXO7

The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not hard to figure out. People have unalienable rights granted to them by existence. Luckily in America the founders agreed with this. They are life, liberty, and owning property. We the People means we the American citizens, not we the government officials. The people grant privileges to the government that it has to follow. Every time you see the word shall in the constitution that is the people giving this responsibility to the government. If they dishonor their responsibility it is treason. The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government to tweak or create new laws not specified in the previous amendments when it was created. But now as you can see other amendments go beyond the tenth. If you are going to have more amendments beyond the tenth, remove the tenth first. Otherwise it is treason. They did not follow the Constitution.

The Consitution states the people give privilaged powers to the government. It's a document from the people to the government. It's directions. Politicians have turn this idea upside down. Now the government unconstitutionally gives the people privileges, like licences. What?! How can that be when you have an unalienable right called liberty? The government doesn't grant us privileges. That's unconstitutional.

So your argument is that everyone should recieve food stamps? Everyone should automatically have a driver's license?

he's right.Ratchet_Fan8

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

I'm the one speaking in vague terms? I'm not the one who misinterprets the Constitution. I'm not the one who decides to agree with whatever the government says. I'm trying to know my rights so when drones start to fly over our cities I can be there to stand up for our rights and say this is wrong. And you can be there to obey. Because you are talking like you are oblivious.

Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.

Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?

Bane_09

You have some really disjointed ideas:?

Are you saying you don't need public education because your parents could teach you instead?

The government giving out licences is unconstitional? Where are you getting all these ideas from?

The government cannot require you to do something. The people created government. It gave the powers to the government as privileges. The government does not provide privileges to you. You have rights. The government requiring you to have a drivers license is unconstitutional. If we did live in a free land that anyone could do anything without stepping on others liberties and property and then the government stepped in and said, "Wait a minute there. You can't drive that machine without having a license first." This is a violation of my right to liberty. The government stops me from being free. The purpose of our government is to protect our rights. What good is it when the government doesn't respect our rights?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] You're speaking in really vague terms. Congress is already 'afraid' of the people in the sense that they try to do things that are popular in their districts so they get reelected. And Congress' purpose is to represent the will of its constituents in legislation. They do that, more or less. And if they overstep the bounds of their powers in the constitution, the supreme court is there to arbitrate that. The problem here is that the Constitution does not always prescribe cut and dry solutions for every scenario. The Court often finds valid arguments both for and against specific bills, and in those cases, it rules in favor of upholding the legislation. So basically what it comes down to is, your idea of constitutionality is not definitive, and it's probably a little arrogant to accuse hundreds of people of treason for disagreeing with you!Abbeten

Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.

Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?

Also I don't think you're reading my posts, because our welfare programs are not by nature 'promoting limited welfare.'

So your argument is that everyone should recieve food stamps? Everyone should automatically have a driver's license?worlock77

The government doesn't require you to have a driver's license. Did you just discover libertarianism yesterday? Because you don't seem to understand any sort of legal nuance. Or even the fact that 'we the people' shape the government through elections and that government is comprised of American citizens. It's like you don't understand the basic underlying philosophy of a legislature or a representative government.Abbeten

Because they shouldn't require you to do anything. It is not it's purpose. It can't order you to do anything. I know about the people in government. They are doing actions against freedom without punishment. Because the people are letting them do this. We shape the government by letting the government do what it wants. We do this by doing nothing! We let the government tell us what to do. We are stupid for not realizing this.

We have rights. Not the government. The government is made up of people and those people have rights. Duh. But not the government. The government is not a person. Corporations are not a person. They don't have rights. We the people allow this to happen.

If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/17/romney-47-percent-video-response/70000549/1#.UFfqplFGIuU

Guybrush_3

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/17/romney-47-percent-video-response/70000549/1#.UFfqplFGIuU

Mozelleple112

You are in the top 20% of income tax payers? how much federal income tax did you pay last year?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/17/romney-47-percent-video-response/70000549/1#.UFfqplFGIuU

Mozelleple112

Tradition within the Court's constitutional framework is corroding the constitution itself. Got it.Abbeten

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/17/romney-47-percent-video-response/70000549/1#.UFfqplFGIuU

Guybrush_3

You are in the top 20% of income tax payers? how much federal income tax did you pay last year?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"] If you are in the 47%, you absolutely suck. Of course, both you and I know that he was NOT talking about all of the 0-16 year olds, and 70+ year olds that are thrown into that 47%, but the rest of the U.S. population that makes up that 47%. Seriously what the hell is wrong with America? 47% makes it sound like a third world country. Should be 4.7% by western standards. Guess I am the top 20% at least..Mozelleple112

You are in the top 20% of income tax payers? how much federal income tax did you pay last year?

Congratulations! You are part of the 47% that Romney said he would not win.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/17/romney-47-percent-video-response/70000549/1#.UFfqplFGIuU

Mozelleple112

"He wasn't talking about the 47% who don't pay income tax, he was talking about that other 47% who don't pay income tax"

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

You are in the top 20% of income tax payers? how much federal income tax did you pay last year?

Brosephus_Rex

Congratulations! You are part of the 47% that Romney said he would not win.

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/17/romney-47-percent-video-response/70000549/1#.UFfqplFGIuU

-Sun_Tzu-

"He wasn't talking about the 47% who don't pay income tax, he was talking about that other 47% who don't pay income tax"

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"] No, I'm too young to be paying taxes, I'm a university student who can expect a $80,000 (on average) start-salary which will on average increase to just over $100,000/year in 10 years, NOT adjusted for inflation and increased prices. My mum paid about $40,000 in tax last year and my grandpa paid another $70,000 in income tax money. Which I guess is roughly enough to be considered the top 20%. My dad doesn't pay any taxes at all, 0% income tax in Dubai, despite his near 7 figure income!Mozelleple112

Congratulations! You are part of the 47% that Romney said he would not win.

lol fvcking undergrads crack me up.

No one is saying the government has rights. The government DOES have powers though, and they are enumerated in the constitution and exercised in the enactment and enforcement of laws. Civics 101.Abbeten

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

Congratulations! You are part of the 47% that Romney said he would not win.

HoolaHoopMan

lol fvcking undergrads crack me up.

So I must be talking out of my ass right? :lol: Yes, it must be so hard for me to find a job as with a master degree in marketing/business, especially when my dad is the worldwide Chief Talent Officer for the largest media company in the world, dear golly HollaHoop, how will I ever find a job :roll: :roll: :roll:Mozelleple112

Yea because its all internet talk, garunteed 80 grand a year!!! Keep that attitude, chances are you'll be in for a rude awakening. At least your willing the admit the only reason you may land a job is because your father has an in for you :lol:

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"] And after I graduate I will be put in the top ~20%.. Your point?Mozelleple112

lol fvcking undergrads crack me up.