Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Could someone please tell me...

Where does it say that the government and by extension we the people are mandated to provide for everyone? Their food, shelter, utilities, medical, etc. I know I'll get slammed for this because it involves children which yes I love and want all of them to be taken care of but where does it state that it is the right of anyone to get everything free?

We proclaim we want a balanced budget but don't touch the programs that help the poor get fed, don't touch the money that helps our seniors (not talking social security), don't touch anything that is dearest to our hearts just cut someone elses money. Where does it state that it must be provided instead of trying to do something for ourselves?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for giving people a hand up but when does it stop being a hand up and instead becomes a hand pulling others down?

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 12:03 PM on Mar. 2, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (34)
  • I completely agree; our government has succeeded in becoming the biggest enabler of them all! I've been saying for years that we should follow Denmark's lead as it pertains to unemployment; when they cut back the amount of time allowed to remain on unemployment (and they did so several times), every single flippin' time, there were huge spikes in employment as soon as the payouts ended. Guess the folks finally had the motivation to get out and get a job. Now, I know I'll get bashed by those out there that say there are no jobs but that's why you save when you DO have a job; it's called saving for a rainy day. Where is the common sense????
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:12 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • popcorn

    gemgem

    Answer by gemgem at 12:05 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • The preamble isn't law. The preamble of the Constitution is an introduction to what lies ahead - it does not dictate rights nor does it hold up in court as a supporting precedent.

    I don't think it's unconstitutional to provide social service programs - however, I don't think it's mandated by the Constitution either. And I do agree with anon - we need to stop financing programs we can't pay for without applying a higher tax burden on the backs of a public that is already staggering under the tax burden it currently supports.
    ldmrmom

    Answer by ldmrmom at 12:42 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • BTW - Sister act, I missed this line "Most of the wealthy did not actually earn those protected $$$$ via their own hard work and determination."

    Where are the stats to support this claim?

    Actually, I think very few wealthy are the variety of elites who woke up with a silver spoon shoved in their mouth by someone else. I would counter that most successful people *DID* work hard to get where they are today. Isn't that the point? Does any of us really go through life thinking we'll just start down here and toil away for the hell of it without ever climbing out? Doesn't every entrepreneur go into business thinking he or she has the next big money maker. Today's Fortune 500s all started in someone's proverbial garage. The folks at the helms, most of them started their careers at the bottom of the ladder and worked their tail off to get to the top. I can't begrudge them that.
    ldmrmom

    Answer by ldmrmom at 2:02 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance.

    This really doesn't support your claim and in totality even if the received 100,000 would not put them in the type of category you are purporting.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 3:50 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • How does a program that expends billions only cost less than a $1 a month per recipient? I don't understand the math.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to some of the programs we've got enacted today. I *am* opposed to over taxation to provide services of all sorts. Thinking of my own wallet, I'd be a lot less tight on money *if* I had more of my own paycheck in my own wallet. I can't help but think some folks on the edge of needing assistance would be a lot more secure if they owed the Feds a less. We need to stop the mind set that the government exists to support us and bail us out. We need to stop the mindset that the Feds (or locals) have money printing machines to finance their own projects - it's OUR money from OUR pockets. We need to stop the practice of governments spending cash the government doesn't have.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:18 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • Well, there is that line in the Preamble of the Constitution: "ensure the general welfare." Comes right after "provide for the common defense."

    I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't envision people pumping out kids to get money. But I also think they would reject the idea of never helping anyone.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 12:34 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • And for what it's worth, before we assume the Founding Father's would have supported the mindset of public funded social support programs pushed for in the post-Depression age, we might want to look at the things they actually said on related topics. Thomas Jefferson, for example, once said "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" IN other words, he wasn't so keen on taxing the wealthy to provide for the less fortunate. Yeah, Jefferson was considered wealthy...he also flirted with bankruptcy and died with a nearly exhausted estate.
    ldmrmom

    Answer by ldmrmom at 12:45 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • "ensure the general welfare."

    Not the individual welfare
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 1:15 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

  • I doubt that ld was trying to 'lump' anything.I am pretty sure she wasn't speaking of all big families only those who cannot afford big families and still create them.
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 1:38 PM on Mar. 2, 2011

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN