Bush said, "[G]overnment has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children". Why?

Question

According to James Madison, "Father of the Constituion", who only happened to be an author of the Constitution, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

So, how do we reconcile the current popular wisdom that it is the government's job, with the fact that nowhere in the Constituion is this authority granted to the Federal government?

Let me add that I don't necessarily have a problem with it, IF the Constitution was amended to authorize this power to the federal government. This at least would be consistent with the rule of law this country was founded upon.

And the Constitution is not "outdated". The whole point of it was to specifically limit government so we could enjoy maximum liberty and freedom. It is a contract between the people and the government, and the government has violated it.

Answer 1

Most will say "promote the general welfare" but that ignores that the US Constitution was designed to limit federal govt. power.

Some will mention a moral obligation - govt's don't have moral obligations. Individuals have moral responsibilities. Individuals should care for themselves and others.

The federal govt. doesn't have the permission (govt's don't get rights) of the people to spend money on people they feel deserve it.

I also hear that the govt is prosperous. The govt isn't prosperous, the people are the ones that work and produce money/wealth. What you are saying here is I want to take from one and give to another.

Answer 2

this could make a solid comedy video clips. a million. $500 billion is popping out of extra money to assurance companies interior the Medicare benefit plan over a 10-365 days era to maintain Medicare funds. it would want for use to subsidize the well-being Care assurance substitute in 2014. 2. foodstuff stamps isn't gutted or maybe replaced however the standards and quantities might have replaced in accordance with Republican Tea social gathering targets in reducing government reward 3. Republicans in Congress voted against the as quickly as a year boost in SS benfits for disabled and seniors because of the fact they desperate inflation became too low to set off an computerized boost. The index used confirmed inflation of under 3%. 4. The senior employment software isn't mandatory and if that funds went to the well-being Care assurance substitute to subsidize persons to purchase required assurance, that became a solid pass.

Answer 3

It makes a lot more sense than spending billions of dollars on a war in another country. No one there pays federal income tax. My personal opinion is that Bush is trying to balance the federal budget by sending troops overseas to die, so that they won't be able to collect veterans' benefits and by mandating that toxins be put in our drinking water so that none of us will live long enough to collect social security. The Bush family has a history of lying to the public for their own benefit. They don't care about the public; they are in it for the money. Greed is their motivation and they have backers who are even greedier. I wouldn't believe a word he says.

Answer 4

I don't think they should. Elderly usually have family to take care of them. And financially, they are supposed to work and build up a retirement. If they didn't do that, then tough luck.

Disabled people should also have family to care for them. Or at least friends.

This would encourage people to be kind to one another, because you'd never get along in this world as a disabled loner.

And poor people... man do they suck. I grew up poor but I've been working my *** off my entire life to make my family's situation better. People who take welfare and govt. assistance make me sick. It's nobody's responsibility to take care of you if you don't even put forth the effort to take care of yourself. This country makes me sick with how much help they give to the lazy criminals and scammers.

In California we have section 8 housing laws. I've personally known people who have no job, no desire, no motivation, no work ethic, etc. who are living in a $500,000 house because of the section 8 laws. And here I am working my butt off to barely afford my 2 bedroom apartment for my wife and child. There's something seriously wrong with a system that rewards laziness.

Answer 5

The government should take care of its citizens-I see nothing wrong with that. They are willing to give millions to illegal immigrants it is about time the government starting taking care of the poor and the elderly.The constitution is very outdated and is not up with modern times.

Answer 6

Well dang....I was going to answer your question...but you did it for me. And isn't ti the same with forgein aid as well? Think of how much more money we would have if we just abided by the Constitution!

Answer 7

Well, at least its own citizens. Our govt is very prosperitous (speeling?). Istead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer,Bush wants to see more help being offered to those stated above. It is more of a moral responsibility than a Constitutional one.

Answer 8

because that is the measure of civilization and how advanced it is. note that in european countries and elsewhere many countries consider things like public education, transportation and healthcare something the government ought not to be concerned with cost. they provide it ....period. unlike the usa where the fascism ruled by corporate culture rules us.

Answer 9

Yes it is they paid their share of taxes.