Food Stamps at Fast Food Restaurants?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And what do you call a parent who doesn’t feed his/her children because –

.. they have to make an Escalade payment....

.. or a score some crack.....

.. or just any ole excuse.

The "assistance" was originally intended to be temporary for families. After decades it has morphed into a way of life with 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients, who can mathematically demonstrate to you that it is more economically beneficial for them to remain on welfare with the "benefits" than to get a job .... besides ..

... it is more "relaxing" not to have to work.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Man, I don't know where to begin to correct your nonsense on the Constitution. Income taxation isn't taking my money by force? Try not paying it.

If you don't pay it, you're breaking the law. Taxation was part of the Constitution, and income taxation was approved by Congress. In fact it was approved by the 16th Amendment. That takes 2/3 of both houses of congress to propose it, AND 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Taxation WITH representation. You may not like it, but there are laws we all don't like.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You guys have no clue what the commerce clause, general welfare clause, etc. mean, or why they were adopted, or what the Founders were thinking when they wrote it.

And you do?? You were there and spoke to all the participants and got a general consensus on what they all were thinking? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even at the convention. You quote Madison & Jefferson, but there were 40 signees and 55 delegates. What did they all think?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“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.”

What powers are connected to them? The creators probably didn't contemplate a lot of the changes our country has seen over the last 200+ years.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

“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, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

Gee, Madison WROTE the Constitution. Maybe he understood what it meant.

Maybe he understood what he WANTED it to mean.

[CuteOldGuy]

Papadee, I have no response to that. It is about the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen. LOL! Of course he knew what he wanted it to mean. HE WROTE IT! THAT'S WHAT THEY VOTED ON!

And they did anticipate there would be changes to society. That's why we have the amendment process. If we want to just change the meaning of the words to satisfy our whim, then we have no Constitution.

And what will the children eat? So if government doesn't do it, it won't get done? If they were your neighbors would you let them starve while you write Congress expressing your disapproval? The statists have won. We MUST have government do everything for us, and right every wrong. All Hail The Government!

Man, you guys are amazing!

[heidilynnla]

There are even more abusing the system, selling the food stamps, trying to get fired from jobs to collect unemployment and live off the government. They will make the people who actually NEED the help suffer in the long run. Personally, I would rather see someone actually feeding their family at a fast food joint than selling the food stamps.

Unfortunately, I think the scammers out-number the needy. At least in NOLA. We have had this discussion before about supposedly poor people having cell phones for all the kids, x boxes, etc.

quote=lisa.lisa0302;1642789]This may actually surprise you.

There are actually needy,starving, homeless people in this country, people living in homeless shelters, ever lived in one, it sucks, there are single mothers working a low end job to support her family, and may actually need the food stamps. So what, if a single parent who just worked their low paying job all day or all night, wants to feed their kids some fast food.

Sure there are people who do not need food stamps, but there are many many more who need the services the government provides. Im sure the restuarants will not be complaining and happily take the food stamps. I know gas stations who take food stamps.

I can't speak for parents, since I don't have kids, however, there are alot of woman out there, bashing us every day, working their job, or just not able to work at all. Doing the best they can. Let them feed their kids burger king after a long day at work.

Not everybody abuses the system. [/quote]

[papadee]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Papadee, I have no response to that. It is about the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen. LOL! Of course he knew what he wanted it to mean. HE WROTE IT! THAT'S WHAT THEY VOTED ON!

A secretary may write a letter, but the boss dictates what's in it. Madison wrote it, but he didn't write it in a vacuum. It was called a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. That means 55 delegates convened, discussed, debated, and argued what should be in it. Not one person deciding & writing it, then everyone else vote for it. Patrick Henry was there but didn't sign the Constitution because he didn't agree with it.

Yes Madison believed in the narrow interpretation of the "general welfare clause". But Alexander Hamilton argued for a broad interpretation. The two views have prevailed at different times throughout our history, but most scholars believe Hamilton's view predominates case law today.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by papadee

...but didn't sign the Constitution because he didn't agree with it.

For some reason, having not been present at the meeting, I suspect, again based upon my general recollection of the history at the time, that the folks gathered around trying to craft a document to protect them from the overreaching experiences they had in the "mother country" did not have the slightest clue in the deepest, most creative part of their imagination that 200 years later "we" would be discussing "food stamps" under the "umbrella" of the "welfare" clause.....or Lone Star cards .... etc., etc.

It seems like there were a lot of community minded folks and church groups to help out people in need and the general work ethic of those who chose to make the difficult journey to the "new world" would probably make the stoutest poster on here look like a "woosey" on his or her best day.

[harley3535]

Thank U acp.... good looking out

[harley3535]

My my my..... look at the pot calling the kettle black ... i couldn't be a provider on here if men like u wasn't paying for it.. {NO OFFENSE TO ANY REAL MEN}!! WHAT A HYPOCRIATE ! Don't hate cause I was talking about your baby's momma

[heidilynnla]

You pulled that out of your ass! Who is trying to increase taxes in the poor?
Taxation should be a percentage of wages across the board. The "wealthy" are already paying more because they make more.

Socialism sucks


people on the right do not want the wealthy to pay more taxes, they want poor people to!

Their motto seems to be "taxes for the wealthy, bad. Taxes on poor folks, good.''

They want the poor to pay their fair share but not business nor the wealthy.
Stupidiest shit I have ever heard. People making 8 dollars an hour need to pay more taxes but the wealthy are over taxed.[/QUOTE]

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by heidilynnla

... people on the right do not want the wealthy to pay more taxes, they want poor people to!

Their motto seems to be "taxes for the wealthy, bad. Taxes on poor folks, good.''

[/quote]

Have you listened to how the current right-winger in the WH wants to pay for this "American Jobs Bill" of 2011?

Let's say that the mortgage deduction is eliminated.
Let's say that the medical deduction is eliminated.
Let's say that the interest on credit cards deduction is eliminated.
Let's say that a gasoline tax is increased.

Who is going to actually be paying for the tax increases?

And who will not be employed because of the tax increases?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by heidilynnla

You pulled that out of your ass! Who is trying to increase taxes in the poor?
Taxation should be a percentage of wages across the board. The "wealthy" are already paying more because they make more.

Socialism sucks


.

[/quote]

First you need to learn how to use the quote button.

I have forgotten more about taxes than you will ever know...

If you want to debate a certain part of the tax code just let me know.

But you have to say something that makes sense first.

Let's start with this first..

''Socialism sucks''

Just how do you think your education was footed? Did you go to some elite private school? Or did you like the majority of Americans go to the public school system? How was that funded? How are firefighter funded? I could go on and on but hopefully you get the picture...

[papadee]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Papadee, I have no response to that. It is about the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen. LOL! Of course he knew what he wanted it to mean. HE WROTE IT! THAT'S WHAT THEY VOTED ON!

One more thing. James Madison didn't WRITE the Constitution, Governeur Morris did. Madison is considered "the Father of the Constitution" because he kept records of the debates & decisions. Morris is considered one of the top 3 influential delegates along with Madison & George Washington.

Well I've been doing some research COG, and it keeps getting better. Madison said, "In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce."

In 1790, the U.S. had a population under 4 million. It was 95% rural, 5% urban. By 2000 the population was over 300 million, with 80% urban, 20% rural. Expecting the same size govt. as we had in 1790, 1890, or even 1960 isn't logical. Back then, everyone grew/raised their own food. Today that's improbable, if not impossible. And just think about the difference in sanitation issues.

I too believe our govt. is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. But shrinking the size doesn't eliminate any of that. It just gives us a smaller wasteful, inefficient, corrupt govt.

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes, Madison said that. That is why there is room for amendment, not misquotation or misinterpretation.

But I will agree we need a few amendments, the most important may be correcting the number of Representatives in the US House. In 1790, a Representative represented just over 9000 citizens, today one Representative represents just under 700,000 citizens. That is not representation.

We also need to repeal the 17th amendment, along with a few others. Amendments aren't always the best thing either, but it is still better than some lawyer's spin being written into law by the Supreme Court.

And WTF, just because the government is promoting a government monopoly on education does not make it the right thing to do. If an average person wants to sent their child to a private school, they end up paying for the private school AND the government school. The wealthy elitists have successfully kept the average guy from enjoying the privilege of sending their children to private schools by consistently denying vouchers. I guess they are afraid that the average guys kids might learn critical thinking and independence, instead of how to be a good automaton which is what the Department of Education is trying to promote.

[TexTushHog]

Even assuming that we could divine with exactitude the intent of each of the fifty some odd of the people who came and went at the Constitutional Convention during it's progress, what makes you think that's the relevant issue? They knew that they were writing a Constitution for the ages. A document whose interpretation would have to change over the years to accommodate many different situations, many of which could not be foreseen; changing circumstances and technologies that could not possibly be imagined in the 1780's; and for a rapidly changing world. Not even the most conservative or reactionary of those men thought that the document they were drafting would have a fixed meaning forever.

There are so many quotes from the founders and their contemporaries to this effect that to set them out at length here would be tiresome. Foremost among these quotes however, is Edmund Randolph, who stated in the preamble of the Report on the Committee of Detail that:

In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention: 1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states.Madison concurred:

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

Equally distinguished, but more modern commentators have expound at length on this concept. Oliver Wendell Holmes, perhaps the greatest justice of the past 150 years, noted:

With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.

Even extreme right wing judges such as Richard Posner recognize the obvious. Here Posner talks about Griswald v. Connecticut.

A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.

Holmes perhaps said it most succinctly when he said: "The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas....They are organic, living institutions."

[LexusLover]

"We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."


The legislated shifting of wealth (property) without due process is a form of tyranny, and obviously "foreseen" by the "framers of the Constitution" who had "escaped" from such "tyranny" through the vehicle of the Declaration of Independence, et seq.