As much as I despise the liberal agenda...

Cosmo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

if those things were to be covered by the general welfare statement, they could have just stopped there and not needed any other parts of the constitution. That isn't necessarily a clause as it is a general statement of purpose of the government. if it was meant that the government could ever increase the size of itself in the name of the "general welfare of the people", the enumerated and implied powers of the constitution would not have been necessary. You wouldn't need anything else. You wouldn't need any limits on the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the judicial branch.
Because the power the government has to "promote the general welfare" of the people is spelled out inside the constitution. and anything that exceeds those enumerated powers is and should be declared unconstitutional.

...
Question: Are those things covered in the general statement of purpose of the government?

Regarding the Preamble, it is an opening statement on what government should do as defined in the following Constitution. The government is going to:
Establish Justice, (by establishing a law making, law enforement and courts system)
Insure domestic Tranquility, (by granting Liberties and placing restrictions on government)
Provide for the common defence, (by creating and upkeeping a Natioanl Military Force)
Promote the general Welfare, (by ensuring that all Americans are provided access to these Liberties)
Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
So... the answer is No, you can't just stop at the Preamble without clarifying the methods and procedures to establish a government.

I am referring more to the general welfare clause in article 1 section 8, not necessarily stopping at the preamble. Congress would need no other rules if general welfare meant the peoeples day to day lives. The whole document could have said, "Congress can tax you, and through that tax pay the nations debts and provide all basic needs of the people." if you interpret general welfare to mean take care of citizens day to day lives, then You are free to interpret it that way. I don't.
Again it is a general statement of purpose inside of a taxation article talking about what the money shall be spent on. The term welfare takes on a different connotation now because of the government programs under the same name. The interpretation of this clause and that wording is not uniform. Which is why government programs are said to be unconstitutional by some, and not others. But ultimately the federal government needed no other power than to say "we can tax the states and people at large to be spent on the general welfare of the people of the united states." That clause could be used to justify everything up to and including full wealth seizure. It didn't say that, it said of the United States...which to me means that the government has the power to tax to pay the debts and protect the United States government from creditors both foreign and domestic, as well as to promote and regulate American commerce. Does that interpretation make sense? If they had meant for article I section 8 to be applied to the people of the united states individually I believe they would have said so considering how meticulously they designed it. But that has been under debate for as long as the document has been ratified and probably before. Hamilton's and Madison's interpretations are the foundation of the argument.
I don't think you or I will be the ones to solve it

hopefully that makes sense. Having to write it between job duties. Proofread the best I could!

oh and to answer your question, I would say no.

FiveB247x wrote:

You can characterize it in any form, but I don't think you'd actually find anyone who considers themselves a "liberal" to have such a wholistic viewpoint. It's mere generalize by the opposition in order to complain about the other side.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I suppose it could be considered the belief that the federal government not only can but that they should solve societal issues like poverty, healthcare costs, etc...

I don't think there was any negative connotation with what I said. I think that is a pretty realistic viewpoint of liberal America's "agenda", for better or for worse.
You don't think that I could find any liberal who believes that things like healthcare can and should be provided? really? just because it is a generalization doesn't make it not true.
I don't think that this generalization is off base at all, nor do I think it is necessarily negative or used to discredit anyone. Would every single person interviewed give that definition of the platform, probably not exactly but can you not believe that one could extrapolate it responses?

blackredyellow wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If Michelle Bachmann were the President... in charge of the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal... the city who would have the highest fear of a U.S. nuclear first strike would be San Francisco.

nah... like most politicians she is all talk to get votes... Her and Rick Perry talk the tea party talk about gov't spending, but have their hand out for federal money every chance they get.

Yep. It's that "we're against government spending except when we're not" thing. :crazy:

Unsung - I have an indirect question regarding this comment. We all pay taxes in our society, yet the services we receive aren't necessary up to par, or atleast the capacity they could be. Now there's plenty of corruption and bureaucracy within our system, but with that said, and regardless of that part, don't you feel like with the amount of money our government collects, the citizens of our nation should be receiving more? We pay close to 33-50% to the government in taxes, yet what do we really receive for it? This seems to be the forgotten question about our tax system and government spending. Most people when talking about this topic, it's more about the corruption or invisible leeches sucking the rest of us dry, but let's talk about the other end of this discussion. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

unsung wrote:

General Welfare does not mean cradle-to-the-grave welfare.

I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else. People group, label and categorize ideas now cause it's a lazy way to associate or disassociate with the belief set. I don't think anyone generically thinks such a large and looming idea towards government or not (as you describe). It's a very simplistic way to not discuss each particular issue or area while grouping people together. Our society faces tons of real issues, most of which have complex pieces that offer no simple answers. Saying things are black and white, good or bad is nativity which is what we see in our culture. Everything is grey and elastic, not black and white and set in stone, which goes against how our society thinks and acts (and wants things to be). That's all I'm conveying. People who walk around saying they're a "liberal" or "conservative" have no real place in our society because we have lost focus on what they actually mean in practice in comparison to what we do in the world (home and abroad).

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

The exact reason you are incorrect is because your generalization/definition is solely based on something going on in current events of very recently. That definition would not be given even 5 yrs ago. The notion of what are "liberal" or "conservative" have become nothing more than words to slander with nowadays. And if you look at the real definition or history of each, they are far from the groups, ideas and people who throw them around nowadays. As I said before, they're just generalizations to denounce or discredit the opposition now.

So myopinion about what those words mean is so far off base that I am literally incorrect. It isn't based solely on current events. It is rich with history...the great society, the new deal...these are all solutions to problems of their era...these solutions are based in the idea that the government should do more to solve societal problems. They are all liberal (left of center) in nature. Liberal isn't a dirty word, and my description is not meant as a knock on them...It is a fundamental difference between people who align on the right and people who align on the left. either you believe the government should be the first actor in a problem, or an actor of last resort... Now that may not hold true for every situation for every liberal, but I think it is a constant that cannot be ignored...nor should it be.
You may look at those words as slander, I don't. I look at them as a way to understand the motivations of someones ideas...actually makes it easier to understand them and their ideas, and it usually brings me closer to an idea of compromise.
I think you may want to check the arrogance at the door, I understand what you are trying to say, but that doesn't mean that everyone looks at those labels the same way as you do. In today's politics, if you are left of center you are more "liberal"...if you are right of center you are more conservative in nature. Now you can be on that spectrum in social issues, or economic issues, it doesn't have to be both and you can have conservative leanings and liberal ideas...I don't look at them as slander or a knock, rather than to better understand the motivations of the person I am talking to...but since the way I interpret those labels is incorrect, I guess I am just stupid and allow THEY to tell me how to think and feel.
grouping people by generalization isn't all negative.

FiveB247x wrote:

I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else. People group, label and categorize ideas now cause it's a lazy way to associate or disassociate with the belief set. I don't think anyone generically thinks such a large and looming idea towards government or not (as you describe). It's a very simplistic way to not discuss each particular issue or area while grouping people together. Our society faces tons of real issues, most of which have complex pieces that offer no simple answers. Saying things are black and white, good or bad is nativity which is what we see in our culture. Everything is grey and elastic, not black and white and set in stone, which goes against how our society thinks and acts (and wants things to be). That's all I'm conveying. People who walk around saying they're a "liberal" or "conservative" have no real place in our society because we have lost focus on what they actually mean in practice in comparison to what we do in the world (home and abroad).

No worries, it sounded to me like a touch of I am smarter you aren't getting it...but if i am wrong about that I apologize to you.
Like I was saying, I don't use it that way. I use it to better understand the motivations of the person I am talking with...compromise comes from understanding the basis for someone's belief. I would agree that some may miss use a label, or get mad when someone espouses a liberal or conservative idea...but falling short of having a candidate discuss ever single issue, knowing their motivating belief structure should and often does paint an accurate picture of how they will fall on an issue...So you are right that people will use those labels in a negative way, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist for those that use the shorthand to extrapolate how a candidate should vote on an issue...holding him to those principles is where people lose their way.
Now the labels shouldn't be a hard fast rule, but rather a starting point for discussion. Hope that makes sense