Ron Paul on Glen Beck tonight ....

[Larry Gude]

It is...

I was under the impression that Welfare was a function of the state.

...roads and infrastructure, healthy business environment, civil order, so on and so forth. Charity is not welfare.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I was under the impression that Welfare was a function of the state.

Same here.

I like Ron Paul because he's right, the federal government has way too much power.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Naw, I seriously believe people need it.

Think about the single mother who works two jobs and still doesn't have enough money to pay rent.

This was my mother. Did the welfare system help her out? Nope. "She made too much money" because she actually had a job. She couldn't get insurance through the state because she made too much money. When she didn't have a job, they didn't do anything to help her. They never considered the cost of FOOD, RENT, ELECTRICITY, ETC.

Thank heavens for South Potomac Church.

Welfare, however, bought our neighbor a brand new 2007 Ford Mustang.

People DO need help. Right now, the welfare system is just backwards.

People need help. People should help people - charity. But it is not the purview of the federal government. It could be a state or local issue. Welfare is but one of the many things that the feds do without Constitutional authority. If welfare were handled at th e local level, then abuse would be less prevalent. The feds tax burden would be shifted to the locality or state and taxes levied closer to the people stay under control better.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh sure...

People need help. People should help people - charity. But it is not the purview of the federal government. It could be a state or local issue. Welfare is but one of the many things that the feds do without Constitutional authority. If welfare were handled at th e local level, then abuse would be less prevalent. The feds tax burden would be shifted to the locality or state and taxes levied closer to the people stay under control better.

...hide the real issues behind a bunch of constitutional mumbo jumbo why don't you? We HAVE to find out where Paul stands on mean letters.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

People need help. People should help people - charity. But it is not the purview of the federal government. It could be a state or local issue. Welfare is but one of the many things that the feds do without Constitutional authority. If welfare were handled at th e local level, then abuse would be less prevalent. The feds tax burden would be shifted to the locality or state and taxes levied closer to the people stay under control better.

If the government can provide, on your dollar and on my dollar, new Mustangs to people who don't have jobs (to replace their 2002 Mustang), surely they can help those who truly need it.

The government (local and state) should provide some amount of money to charities. But they'd rather spend it for their own personal projects.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...the point is there are some things a politicians might oughta address. A known supremacist endorsing you is one of them.

Vrail wants the man to address anonymous threatening letters. Duke, would you agree, is at least, a larger issue than whether or not Paul supports death threats?

As for me, your supporters might well wanna know why an agnostic is supporting you and they might deserve an answer.

If someone asks, then answer the question. To my knowledge, no one has asked the question except you.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I was under the impression that Welfare was a function of the state.

Oh that that were true. Ever heard of HEW?

 

[Larry Gude]

Andy...

If the government can provide, on your dollar and on my dollar, new Mustangs to people who don't have jobs (to replace their 2002 Mustang), surely they can help those who truly need it.

The government (local and state) should provide some amount of money to charities. But they'd rather spend it for their own personal projects.

...if the government has no right to enter your home and take $100 and give it to me then they have no right to legislate it either. Far too many people think they have that right as 'that's just the way it is'.

Maybe it's time to say 'You can't do that.'

There is a whole other set of dynamics at work if a person can't and doesn't expect to be given his neighobrs stuff. There is another set of dynamics at work when he can.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...hide the real issues behind a bunch of constitutional mumbo jumbo why don't you? We HAVE to find out where Paul stands on mean letters.

I'd buy you a beer, but you might start slurring your typing.

 

[Larry Gude]

If...

If someone asks, then answer the question. To my knowledge, no one has asked the question except you.

...Duke is not noxious to you, then insert someones name who is. Pretend they support Paul and then ask yourself...

...why do they support him?

It is, to use your new favorite word, a non sequitur to say David Duke supports the constitution. Supremacists, by definition, don't.

 

[Larry Gude]

If it...

I'd buy you a beer, but you might start slurring your typing.

...was a really, really big beer.

 

[Toxick]

Oh that that were true. Ever heard of HEW?

No.


And a quick google search yields Jennifer Love Hewitt, Hew Federal Credit Union and Hew Heffner

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

...if the government has no right to enter your home and take $100 and give it to me then they have no right to legislate it either. Far too many people think they have that right as 'that's just the way it is'.

Maybe it's time to say 'You can't do that.'

There is a whole other set of dynamics at work if a person can't and doesn't expect to be given his neighobrs stuff. There is another set of dynamics at work when he can.

Which is why I am your candidate. The candidate of fiscal responsibility.

Also, my campaign has just announced that we will make a motion to change the constitutional amendment currently barring Mr. Schwarzenegger from running. If we can't do so, we will look at the possiblities of having him serve in some position on my cabinet.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

...if the government has no right to enter your home and take $100 and give it to me then they have no right to legislate it either. Far too many people think they have that right as 'that's just the way it is'.

Maybe it's time to say 'You can't do that.'

There is a whole other set of dynamics at work if a person can't and doesn't expect to be given his neighobrs stuff. There is another set of dynamics at work when he can.

They won't enter your home. They'll just take it away via eminent domain.

 

[itsbob]

I believe that people need welfare, but it should not be a federal function. Welfare needs tailored administration so that it is not abused and that cannot be done by a national entity.

To steal Hillary's words.. it takes a village.. although for her the Village IS the federal Gov't.

The federal gov't is too far removed to be an efficient manager or overseer to the welfare system.

Welfare should be the purview of the locl gov't, and in big cities, even neighborhood. BUT first and foremost, I don't think an idividaul should be looking to the gov't for help, that should be their LAST choice, not their first.

and just blindly writing checks is NOT the answer. If they are able, put them to work... Lot of litter on the side of the highway, and a lot of work that could be done that isn't. Yet we pay out billions of dollars for people to sit in their homes and watch Oparah..

 

[2ndAmendment]

If the government can provide, on your dollar and on my dollar, new Mustangs to people who don't have jobs (to replace their 2002 Mustang), surely they can help those who truly need it.

The government (local and state) should provide some amount of money to charities. But they'd rather spend it for their own personal projects.

I think you missed it. Welfare is not provided as a function of the federal government under the Constitution. They do it without the authority to do so. Any tax collected and spent on welfare is unconstitutionally collected and spent.

The states are under their own founding document restrictions as are most localities. So welfare was originally charity of people helping people.

If the Constitution were amended through the proper procedure to provide stipends for individuals (welfare), then it would be OK. Until that happens, welfare provided by the federal government is unconstitutional.

If there are not legal restriction on the states or localities, then they can collect taxes and provide welfare. If there are, then there authorizing documents can be amended or welfare can become charity again.

Under charity, you might buy groceries for a neighbor in need until they get on their feet, but it is unlikely you are going to buy them a Mustang.

 

[Larry Gude]

You didn't...

Which is why I am your candidate. The candidate of fiscal responsibility.

Also, my campaign has just announced that we will make a motion to change the constitutional amendment currently barring Mr. Schwarzenegger from running. If we can't do so, we will look at the possiblities of having him serve in some position on my cabinet.

...last long. Arnie is not my cup of tea.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I think you missed it. Welfare is not provided as a function of the federal government under the Constitution. They do it without the authority to do so. Any tax collected and spent on welfare is unconstitutionally collected and spent.

The states are under their own founding document restrictions as are most localities. So welfare was originally charity of people helping people.

If the Constitution were amended through the proper procedure to provide stipends for individuals (welfare), then it would be OK. Until that happens, welfare provided by the federal government is unconstitutional.

If there are not legal restriction on the states or localities, then they can collect taxes and provide welfare. If there are, then there authorizing documents can be amended or welfare can become charity again.

Under charity, you might buy groceries for a neighbor in need until they get on their feet, but it is unlikely you are going to buy them a Mustang.

You say welfare is unconstitutional?

So is this.

Do you trust them to interpert the 2nd amendment properly as well.

 

[itsbob]

They won't enter your home. They'll just take it away via eminent domain.

The gov't doesn't 'take' anything by eminent domain..

They purchase it.

 

[ylexot]

...the point is there are some things a politicians might oughta address. A known supremacist endorsing you is one of them.

Does RP even know that white supremacists support him? :shrug:


...or maybe he should randomly address the possible endorsements from any possible nut-job supporter. So Vrai, has Rudy officially and unequivocally denounced Zoastrianism?