Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (144500)	10/25/2005 2:41:08 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793917

Obviously we fundamentally disagree.

To: KLP who wrote (144500)	10/26/2005 6:00:56 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

KLP, I really don't want to get into this too deeply, but promote the general welfare does not mean to totally finance it. I think it is more like one of the definitions of the word "promote". "To contribute to the progress or growth of". That would include the federal highways, national parks, certain memorials that are meant to honor those that have served the nation, and other projects that contribute to the entire nation. It does not include things like bailing out states, or cities, for whatever may happen to them. Even though I believe that the federal government should give them a helping hand, it should not be expected to carry the entire load. The, so called, welfare that is so abused, and fruitless, are things like the food stamps, and totally providing for several generations of certain groups of people. That kind of welfare has spawned millions of Americans that do not, and will not, work to earn a living, because Uncle Sam is going to pay for all of their needs. Self reliance has been thrown into the trash bag, and that is one of the traits that made this nation so strong in the first place. Those that produce should not have to pay the way for those that will only suck the government's teat.