Welfare Reform Extension Act

[The Duke]

And one of the foregoing pwoers is to make laws which are necessary and proper for advancing the general welfare.

[A18]

Where is that foregoing power?

[The Duke]

Section 8, Clause 18 says necessary and proper.  That is, necessary and proper for advancing the general welfare (Clause 1).

[A18]

As I said earlier, the general welfare clause is qualified by the other powers.

If Congress can spend money on anything, there is absolutely no point to the post roads power.

[The Duke]

They can't spend money on just anything, because they can't infringe on the enumerated rights of citizens and they can't infringe upon the powers delegated to the other branches of government.

It seems we are moving in circles.

[A18]

I'm going to try this one more time. If Congress can spend money on anything that doesn't violate a particular list of exceptions, what is the point to the post roads power?

[The Duke]

I think you misunderstand the Constitution.  Here is the text of AI, S8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You believe that Clause 1 encompasses the following clauses.  That is to say, the things outlined in clause 1, which include providing for the general welfare, are general terms that fnd more specific definitions in the following clauses.  For example, providing for the general welfare includes the posting of roads.

This is a mistake on your part.  It is not clause one that is defined by the subsequent 17 clauses, but clause 18 that is defined by the previous 17 clauses.

Clause 18 says that the Congress shall execute the "forgoeing powers".  What are the foregoing powers?  The previous 17 powers, that is Clauses 1-17.

The Congress has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."  One of these foregoing powers is in Clause 1, to provide for the general welfare.  The general welfare is not defined by the following clauses, it is actually a distinct power unto itself, and the congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper for promoting it.

You are actually reading Section 8 backwards.

[A18]

The power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare is clearly qualified by the powers below, or else there would be no post roads power.

If you disagree with that, you disagree with the Father of the Constitution, so don't just sit there and say I'm wrong.

I did not say Clause 1 encompasses the other clauses, merely that it was qualified by such clauses, and that it must be seen in light of the other clauses.

The final power is an additional power, that strengthens the federal government by giving it the extra muscle it needs to carry these things into execution.

[A18]

Madison's own words: "With respect to the 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."

Furthermore, he specifically critcized welfare spending, saying: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

And, most amusing in light of modern America:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

[The Duke]

No, I am actually quite right.

The powers of the Congress are enumerated powers.  It has the power to dot he things that its enumerated to do.  The first thing in its enumerated powers is to provide for the general welfare.

Providing for the general welfare is a specific enumerated power delegated to Congress.

It is not defined by or qualified by the other enumerated powers.  It is a power unto itself.

Here is the flaw in your "Madison said so" argument.  Madison says that the general welfare is seperated by no more than a semicolon, and therefore it doesn't lord over the other powers but is constrained by them.  Let us take this logic to the other provisions of the Section 8.

Clause 16 says the Congress can raise and organize the militias.  The next provision states that Congress has the power to govern the District of Colombia, the two provisions seperated by no more than a semicolon.  By Madison's logic, that a mere semicolon means the later provisions define the parameters of former provisions, then the only way the Congress is empowered to raise armies is by governing DC!

Also, you need to stop pretending that Madison and only Madison wrote the Constitution.  You try to make it sound as if Madison sat in his study, wrote the thing without consulting anyone, presented it to the Constitutional Convention, and it was approved without debate or delay.  It didn't happen that way, and its wrong to bring up a Madison quote as if only the words of Madison mattered.  Another author of your beloved Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, had a very different view of the Constitution than Madison did.  His actions once in office demonstrate that plainly, and his actions at the Convention in 1787 and his participation in the Federalist Papers show that he is nearly as much father of our Constitution as Madison.

[A18]

Yes, a power unto itself. As in, the power to tax and spend. The "general welfare" crap is qualified by the other powers.

And no, every power is not qualified by the other powers, but the point is that it's all one big phrase, and the format of the document, coupled with the obvious knowledge that the founders wished to maintain limited government (yes, that includes Hamilton, who did NOT say Congress can spend money on whatever the hell it wants) and the fact that a "post roads" power that would be completely unnecessary if your view held water, shows quite plainly that the first phrase is limited in use to powers later mentioned.

Hamilton's argument was that a national bank was constitutional because it was being used to carry into execution the foregoing powers; NOT that Congress could spend money on anything it wanted, and could therefore set up a bank just like a group of inidividual citizens.

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

[A18]

I agree. Abolish the time limit and make the welfare $0.00.

[The Duke]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

[The Duke]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

[TeePee4Prez]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

I do think welfare has become a way of life for some people.  However, I feel there should be more done regarding post-secondary education to lift people out of poverty.  Such jobs as housekeping or Wal-Mart should be for teenagers, college kids, and 2nd income housewives, not the breadwinner.

[The Duke]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

Okay, we all understand your theory.  Do you have evidence to support that theory?

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

I do think welfare has become a way of life for some people.  However, I feel there should be more done regarding post-secondary education to lift people out of poverty.  Such jobs as housekeping or Wal-Mart should be for teenagers, college kids, and 2nd income housewives, not the breadwinner.

Ideally yes, but certainly we could mandate that those jobs be paid a decent wage - far more than $6 or $7 per hour.  We're coming to a point where nearly half the jobs in the economy are being described as 'well, those job are just for teenagers'!

[opebo]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

Okay, we all understand your theory.  Do you have evidence to support that theory?

Evidence that poor people do not typically land highly paid jobs out of welfare?!  You must be joking.  How about some evidence that they do since that is the absurdly unlikely claim.

Good lord man, the median income is about $15 per hour - people just don't make that much out there!

[The Duke]

Okay, lets see.  Bill is a mid manager at a tech company.  His company downsizes, and he is laid off.  He spends six months on welfare and the finds a job.  Does he find a job at another tech company or does he work at Burer King?  I go to a lot of fat food joints, and I don't see any middle aged men working there, opebo.  They get jobs comparable to the one they lost.

Bill got TANF money and unemployment benefits from the govenrment, so he's a welfare recipient.  Not everyone who goes on welfare is necessarily poor.

Now, if its so easy to prove your claim, and so obvious that its true, why do you object to producing evidence from a credible source that studies economic data?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Okay, lets see.  Bill is a mid manager at a tech company.  His company downsizes, and he is laid off.  He spends six months on welfare and the finds a job.  Does he find a job at another tech company or does he work at Burer King?  I go to a lot of fat food joints, and I don't see any middle aged men working there, opebo.  They get jobs comparable to the one they lost.

Bill got TANF money and unemployment benefits from the govenrment, so he's a welfare recipient.  Not everyone who goes on welfare is necessarily poor.

Now, if its so easy to prove your claim, and so obvious that its true, why do you object to producing evidence from a credible source that studies economic data?

A lot of people give up looking for a job.
There are lots of old people working at dead end jobs like Knkos

[opebo]

Okay, lets see.  Bill is a mid manager at a tech company.  His company downsizes, and he is laid off.  He spends six months on welfare and the finds a job.  Does he find a job at another tech company or does he work at Burer King?  I go to a lot of fat food joints, and I don't see any middle aged men working there, opebo.  They get jobs comparable to the one they lost.

Bill got TANF money and unemployment benefits from the govenrment, so he's a welfare recipient.  Not everyone who goes on welfare is necessarily poor.

Now, if its so easy to prove your claim, and so obvious that its true, why do you object to producing evidence from a credible source that studies economic data?

So you are claiming that the typical welfare recipient is someone who has ever had a large income.  I suggest to you that the typical welfare recipient is someone who has never had a large income and never will.  I hate to waste my time trying to dig up statistics on welfare and wages - certainly you could do the same. 

Perhaps you're right, the typical welfare recipient is an upper middle class white male with an advanced degree who is merely 'laid off', and not in fact a black or rural person suffering the effects of generations of poverty in a society devoid of upward mobility.  Anyway, lets both google.

[The Duke]

I didn't say that, did I?  I simply asked for proof of your statement and presented an example as to why it shouldn't be accepted at face value.