Should minimum wage be abolished?

[Kushinator]

show me where people are limited in the constitution.

Show me where in the post you've responded to that i stated anything of the sort.

 

[Sisyphus]

federalist 39 james madison--Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

Seems Jimbo was wrong about that. Here: read up on it.

 

[Sisyphus]

no sorry......welfare as you know it was created back in the 1930's and called "relief" it ended during WWII and was bought back in the early 1960's and renamed "welfare".

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“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, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

Nope. Never been called Welfare, except by people speaking about the acts, which by the way, have been in force since their inception, and only altered with new acts.

More info here: US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

 

[Master PO]

Show me where in the post you've responded to that i stated anything of the sort.

you quoted me after i stated that the constitution gave no authority to the government over the people.

so what was your meaning then of your quote?

 

[Master PO]

Nope. Never been called Welfare, except by people speaking about the acts, which by the way, have been in force since their inception, and only altered with new acts.

More info here: US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

How Welfare Began in the United States


During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.
—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931


The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.
When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.

The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.

Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.

Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.
Welfare Before the Depression

A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for 'relief", they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt called a White House conference on how to best deal with the problem of poor single mothers and their children. The conference declared that preserving the family in the home was preferable to placing the poor in institutions, which were widely criticized as costly failures.

Starting with Illinois in 1911, the "mother's pension" movement sought to provide state aid for poor fatherless children who would remain in their own homes cared for by their mothers. In effect, poor single mothers would be excused from working outside the home. Welfare reformers argued that the state pensions would also prevent juvenile delinquency since mothers would be able to supervise their children full-time.

By 1933, mother's pension programs were operating in all but two states. They varied greatly from state to state and even from county to county within a state. In 1934, the average state grant per child was $11 a month. Administered in most cases by state juvenile courts, mother's pensions mainly benefitted families headed by white widows. These programs excluded large numbers of divorced, deserted, and minority mothers and their children.

Few private and government retirement pensions existed in the United States before the Great Depression. The prevailing view was that individuals should save for their old age or be supported by their children. About 30 states provided some welfare aid to poor elderly persons without any source of income. Local officials generally decided who deserved old-age assistance in their community.
A National Welfare System

The emphasis during the first two years of President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" was to provide work relief for the millions of unemployed Americans. Federal money flowed to the states to pay for public works projects, which employed the jobless. Some federal aid also directly assisted needy victims of the Depression. The states, however, remained mainly responsible for taking care of the so-called "unemployables" (widows, poor children, the elderly poor, and the disabled). But states and private charities, too, were unable to keep up the support of these people at a time when tax collections and personal giving were declining steeply.

In his State of the Union Address before Congress on January 4, 1935, President Roosevelt declared, "the time has come for action by the national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life." He went on to propose the creation of federal unemployment and old-age insurance programs. He also called for guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other dependent persons.

By permanently expanding federal responsibility for the security of all Americans, Roosevelt believed that the necessity for government make-work employment and other forms of Depression relief would disappear. In his address before Congress, Roosevelt argued that the continuation of government relief programs was a bad thing for the country:

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . .

A few months later, on August 18, 1935, Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. It set up a federal retirement program for persons over 65, which was financed by a payroll tax paid jointly by employers and their workers. FDR believed that federal old-age pensions together with employer-paid unemployment insurance (also a part of the Social Security Act) would provide the economic security people needed during both good and bad times.

In addition to old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, the Social Security Act established a national welfare system. The federal government guaranteed one-third of the total amount spent by states for assistance to needy and dependent children under age 16 (but not their mothers). Additional federal welfare aid was provided to destitute old people, the needy blind, and crippled children. Although financed partly by federal tax money, the states could still set their own eligibility requirements and benefit levels. This part of the law was pushed by Southern states so they could control the coverage made available to their African-American population.

This is how welfare began as a federal government responsibility. Roosevelt and the members of Congress who wrote the welfare provisions into the Social Security Act thought that the need for federal aid to dependent children and poor old people would gradually wither away as employment improved and those over 65 began to collect Social Security pensions. But many Americans, such as farm laborers and domestic servants, were never included in the Social Security old-age retirement program. Also, since 1935, increasing divorce and father desertion rates have dramatically multiplied the number of poor single mothers with dependent children.

Since the Great Depression, the national welfare system expanded both in coverage and federal regulations. From its inception, the system drew critics. Some complained that the system did not do enough to get people to work. Others simply believed the federal government should not administer a welfare system. As the system grew, so did criticism of it, especially in the 1980s and '90s.


states are not prohibited from instituting welfare programs, however the federal government is, becuase it is not listed as a power.

 

[Master PO]

The New Deal was a series of domestic economic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They involved presidential executive orders or laws passed by Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.[1]

The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, the white South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most presidential elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and "conservative" for its opponents. From 1934 to 1938, Roosevelt was assisted in his endeavours by a "pro-spender" majority in Congress (drawn from two-party, competitive, non-machine, Progressive, and Left party districts). As noted by Alexander Hicks, "Roosevelt, backed by rare, non-Southern Democrat majorities—270 non-Southern Democrat representatives and 71 non-Southern Democrat senators—spelled Second New Deal reform."[2]

Many historians distinguish between a "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38), with the second one more liberal and more controversial. The "First New Deal" (1933–34) dealt with diverse groups, from banking and railroads to industry and farming, all of which demanded help for economic survival. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, for instance, provided $500 million for relief operations by states and cities, while the short-lived CWA (Civil Works Administration) gave localities money to operate make-work projects in 1933-34.[3]

The "Second New Deal" in 1935–38 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program (which made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the nation),[4] the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers.[5]

The economic downturn of 1937–38, and the bitter split between the AFL and CIO labor unions led to major Republican gains in Congress in 1938. Conservative Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined in the informal Conservative Coalition. By 1942–43 they shut down relief programs such as the WPA and CCC and blocked major liberal proposals. Roosevelt himself turned his attention to the war effort, and won reelection in 1940 and 1944. The Supreme Court declared the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, however the AAA was rewritten and then upheld. As the first Republican president elected after FDR, Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–61) left the New Deal largely intact, even expanding it in some areas.[6] In the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society used the New Deal as inspiration for a dramatic expansion of liberal programs, which Republican Richard M. Nixon generally retained. After 1974, however, the call for deregulation of the economy gained bipartisan support.[7] The New Deal regulation of banking (Glass–Steagall Act) was suspended in the 1990s. Many New Deal programs remain active, with some still operating under the original names, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

 

[Master PO]

Seems Jimbo was wrong about that. Here: read up on it.

JIMBO is the father of the u.s. constitution lived longer then any other founding father and wrote more on the constitution than anybody.

10th amendment" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"....<----federalism.

 

[Sisyphus]

JIMBO is the father of the u.s. constitution lived longer then any other founding father and wrote more on the constitution than anybody.

10th amendment" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"....<----federalism.

Actually, if it had a father (it doesn't) that would be John Adams, since his Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the template the US Con was largely based upon.

 

[Sisyphus]

The New Deal was a series of domestic economic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They involved presidential executive orders or laws passed by Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.[1]

The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, the white South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most presidential elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and "conservative" for its opponents. From 1934 to 1938, Roosevelt was assisted in his endeavours by a "pro-spender" majority in Congress (drawn from two-party, competitive, non-machine, Progressive, and Left party districts). As noted by Alexander Hicks, "Roosevelt, backed by rare, non-Southern Democrat majorities—270 non-Southern Democrat representatives and 71 non-Southern Democrat senators—spelled Second New Deal reform."[2]

Many historians distinguish between a "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38), with the second one more liberal and more controversial. The "First New Deal" (1933–34) dealt with diverse groups, from banking and railroads to industry and farming, all of which demanded help for economic survival. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, for instance, provided $500 million for relief operations by states and cities, while the short-lived CWA (Civil Works Administration) gave localities money to operate make-work projects in 1933-34.[3]

The "Second New Deal" in 1935–38 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program (which made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the nation),[4] the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers.[5]

The economic downturn of 1937–38, and the bitter split between the AFL and CIO labor unions led to major Republican gains in Congress in 1938. Conservative Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined in the informal Conservative Coalition. By 1942–43 they shut down relief programs such as the WPA and CCC and blocked major liberal proposals. Roosevelt himself turned his attention to the war effort, and won reelection in 1940 and 1944. The Supreme Court declared the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, however the AAA was rewritten and then upheld. As the first Republican president elected after FDR, Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–61) left the New Deal largely intact, even expanding it in some areas.[6] In the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society used the New Deal as inspiration for a dramatic expansion of liberal programs, which Republican Richard M. Nixon generally retained. After 1974, however, the call for deregulation of the economy gained bipartisan support.[7] The New Deal regulation of banking (Glass–Steagall Act) was suspended in the 1990s. Many New Deal programs remain active, with some still operating under the original names, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Let's cut to the chase: whether or not you or I think Welfare should be or can be, Constitutionally, is moot. Fact is we have it and it's not going away. And no doubt Liberts, who do not want to pay for anything they cannot park in their driveway or bring in their front door, will find whatever they believe supports their desire to end vital programs that would be economically devastating to both individuals and our economy at large, were they to be eliminated. So thankfully, the SCOTUS is not littered with nutjob Libertarians like that do-nothing Congressman, Ron Paul, who at great cost to tax payers did little more than warm a seat in the lower chamber, for 20+ years. Waste of money; and a waste of an opportunity to actually accomplish something in a long Congressional Career.

 

[Master PO]

Actually, if it had a father (it doesn't) that would be John Adams, since his Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the template the US Con was largely based upon.

you better read your history, Madison laid the framework [Virgina plan] for the constitution months before the constitutional convention ever took place, read this letters to (jefferson) and Washington where he speaks about this plan already (march 19 1787)

 

[Master PO]

Let's cut to the chase: whether or not you or I think Welfare should be or can be, Constitutionally, is moot. Fact is we have it and it's not going away. And no doubt Liberts, who do not want to pay for anything they cannot park in their driveway or bring in their front door, will find whatever they believe supports their desire to end vital programs that would be economically devastating to both individuals and our economy at large, were they to be eliminated. So thankfully, the SCOTUS is not littered with nutjob Libertarians like that do-nothing Congressman, Ron Paul, who at great cost to tax payers did little more than warm a seat in the lower chamber, for 20+ years. Waste of money; and a waste of an opportunity to actually accomplish something in a long Congressional Career.

the constitution is about power/ authority to act, and under that constitution no power is given to government to redistribute money to others citizens.

so your arguments has no backbone, its just one of feelings and emotions to take care of people, and things you want done ,but not a power of congress.

so you have abandoned any argument of constitutional powers, and now are giving me your..."reality"

 

[Sisyphus]

you better read your history, Madison laid the framework [Virgina plan] for the constitution months before the constitutional convention ever took place, read this letters to (jefferson) and Washington where he speaks about this plan already (march 19 1787)

Laughable (because I have, and do nearly at all times; currently I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin for third time; Brave Companions for a second time, and Die Trying for the first time.)

So with a couple or three books going at a time, I like to make a history book one of them. Just a preference thing. No biggie. But it does give me a nice belly laugh when someone blinded by their dogma tells me I need to read history. So thanks.

Meanwhile, do more than read it; learn it.

 

[Sisyphus]

the constitution is about power/ authority to act, and under that constitution no power is given to government to redistribute money to others citizens.

so your arguments has no backbone, its just one of feelings and emotions to take care of people, and things you want done ,but not a power of congress.

so you have abandoned any argument of constitutional powers, and now are giving me your..."reality"

Also limits on authority, vis a vis the Bill of Rights, which grants rights / responsibilities. I.E the 2A, a right to bear arms and a responsibility to be called up to serve in a militia if need be. But today the world moves more quickly, and a standing army, which the bulk of the FF feared, despite Washington saying the a militia is like leaning on a broken staff.

So it's a law that replaces the rule of kings or gods, largely to be unlike England, with a Monarch and Church running the joint. And they made it Amendable, knowing (they were highly intelligent and well read) they could not know everything we might need, should the experiment prove successful and create a stable new government, by, of AND FOR, the People.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

because government has no authority listed in the constitution, to tell people what to pay.

in order for government to do things ,it must have authority defined in the constitution, delegating them that power, and our constitution does not do that.

no where in the Constitution does it give congress power to limit the people.

It doesn't say anything about Social Security either so it doesn't need to be in the constitution.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

so....... your saying you have a right, to order government to order other people to do things, you want done?


13th amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Last time I checked I was an American citizen so yes. I should have some say.

 

[Master PO]

Also limits on authority, vis a vis the Bill of Rights, which grants rights / responsibilities. I.E the 2A, a right to bear arms and a responsibility to be called up to serve in a militia if need be. But today the world moves more quickly, and a standing army, which the bulk of the FF feared, despite Washington saying the a militia is like leaning on a broken staff.

So it's a law that replaces the rule of kings or gods, largely to be unlike England, with a Monarch and Church running the joint. And they made it Amendable, knowing (they were highly intelligent and well read) they could not know everything we might need, should the experiment prove successful and create a stable new government, by, of AND FOR, the People.

wrong the bill of rights, does not grants right, you will not find give or grant in the bill of rights, the bill of rights is a limitation on state and federal governments that they cannot infringes on the rights of the people by making laws, those rights existed before the constitution.

 

[Master PO]

Last time I checked I was an American citizen so yes. I should have some say.

so you believe you have a right to order government to order other people on what to do........where is your crown?

 

[Master PO]

It doesn't say anything about Social Security either so it doesn't need to be in the constitution.

it sure does not, and SS is unconstitutional no matter what the government says, because it not a delegated power, neither is education, housing,. transportation, to name a few.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

so you believe you have a right to order government to order other people on what to do........where is your crown?

I don't have one but if a corporation expects me to help pay for their employees so they can bring in bigger profits.... Hell yes I have a say!

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I don't have one but if a corporation expects me to help pay for their employees so they can bring in bigger profits.... Hell yes I have a say!

Are you equally outraged about being forced to support individuals capable of being productive?

 

[Mach]

wrong the bill of rights, does not grants right, you will not find give or grant in the bill of rights, the bill of rights is a limitation on state and federal governments that they cannot infringes on the rights of the people by making laws, those rights existed before the constitution.

It's strange though because this is the entire point of the declaration of independence and the resulting constitution. Inalienable rights. As opposed to rights "Granted" by some government authority. If there were ANY idea to take from it that was it. Craziness that people honestly seek to replace a Monarch's rule with Mob rule. Two wrongs surely make a right!?!

 

[Henrin]

BS, it is not a natural consequence of anything. It is abuse. Safety nets are not meant to be used for corporate 'advantage'. Also, I don't think they have to be motivated to pay their employees more than what they can get away with and that is why we need protections in place.

Business using welfare to their advantage is just a natural consequence of welfare. When you supplement market activity and access business activity will change around it. This will effect what they sell, how they price it, and yes, the wages they give. I don't really understand how this is abuse, sorry.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

it sure does not, and SS is unconstitutional no matter what the government says, because it not a delegated power, neither is education, housing,. transportation, to name a few.

Where the heck would the middle class be without the right to an education? Also, social security has keep a vast amount of the elderly from poverty. I think the general welfare clause had us in mind.

 

[Mach]

I don't have one but if a corporation expects me to help pay for their employees so they can bring in bigger profits.... Hell yes I have a say!

So you want authority over others? That's very freedom-loving of you!
Why don't you start your own place of employment that services what people want, and take no profit? You are free to do this, yet I suspect you don't. Worse, you expect others to do it forcibly, while you personally refuse to.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Where the heck would the middle class be without the right to an education? Also, social security has keep a vast amount of the elderly from poverty. I think the general welfare clause had us in mind.

The general welfare referred to the States as a whole, not the individuals within those states...