The Blue Board

^^^What's wrong with this country^^^

Though exaggerated, I agree with your point.

Defense - constitutionally required
Welfare at the Federal level - not constitutionally required and therefore in the strictest sense, not authorized

Do we need to cut the defense budget? Sure, but only as we scale back foreign operations/bases and identified waste. We still need to field the best military on earth. The best way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war.

Do we need to end all items/programs not specifically in direct support of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress? HELL YES. This is not to say that these programs cannot continue at a state or local level, that would depend on their respective constitutions/charters.

What we have here (the US Federal Gov't) is referred to as scope creep in the contracting world. Anybody with PM experience knows that one of the fastest ways to blow a budget/schedule is to have scope creep. We have to pare our federal gov't back down to the current contract (Constitution + ammendments). If there is some policy/program that we really like, then we need to do a change order (amendment). We have had horrible PMs (congress) and oversight (President and SCOTUS). It isn't confined to 1 party, so this paragraph isn't pro-GOP or pro-DEM. There really is no logical argument against this paragraph. The debate would come about when would looked at the "change orders" or the amendments.

So back to the OP's point, drug testing of welfare recipients is fine. It should be used as a method to scale back and end federal welfare.

The "general welfare clause" is part of a preamble. Preambles do not give power, but rather explain why the following powers are granted. This argument makes me insane b/c it shows the utterly horrible civic education that most of us receive. The powers that follow are defined in Article 1, Section 8. There are 18 of them and these are the powers that congress has to "promote the general welfare". Welfare (checks or services of modern vernacular) did not exist then, they were simply saying do these 18 things in order to support the well being of society as a whole. For example, we have a postal system to provide for communication (no internet back then), congress is to maintain a Navy, so our ships are safe at sea and our shores too... Of the 18 powers granted, there is not one that could possibly be construed to provide for welfare as we know it today.

Einstein must be a satirical name in this case. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but I am tired of people (judges and congress too) twisting our founding documents based on their wants and wishes. Read the federalist papers or any documents pertaining to the debates/writing of the Constitution, the intent could not be clearer and this is NOT OPINION.

Refer to my earlier post about scope creep. People (congress, judges, lawyers, etc) have used constitutional scholars to find loopholes to avoid going through the amendment process to add to functions of government. This is why we have a bloated Federal gov't that spends TOO MUCH. Some of the additions may be valid/warranted, but they should have been vetted through the amendment process.

The point was you are wanting to add costs (drug testing) to a $60 billion foodstamp program and a $40 billion TEMPORARY Cash Assistance program, while ignoring the fact that defense spending has doubled to $800 billion dollars. We are also spending $300 billion a year monitoring the private lives of Americans for "their safety"

Keep in mind much of that increase was on a pointless war in Iraq, and keeping an open tab in Afghanistan. The Homeland Security budget provided Swat Teams, APCs, and other expensive equipment to sheriffs offices that will never need the equipment.

The Pentagon has insisted on increased spending in order to have the ability to fight on two fronts simultaneously. But after all that spending, we found out that we didn't have enough translators, predator drones, and logistical personnel to fight two wars against inferior opponents, much less being able to fight WW3.

You are also complaining about fraud and waste, while ignoring that you and everyone else on this board receives "unearned" tax credits that take over $1.2 trillion out of the annual budget. None of these credits were ever intended to be permanent. We could eliminate deficit spending just by removing the "temporary" tax credits. And we can create a surplus by cutting spending across the board.

There is fraud in any government program. We spend billions on weapon systems that will never need to be used. The B-1 bomber was a complete failure from the 1980s but Boeing made billions on the contract. The F-22 will not be able to fly "invisibly" over modern radar and infrared systems currently being created by the Russians (which they sell to anyone who can afford it), and at $66 billion dollars the F-22 still hasn't been used in actual combat. We gave millions of dollars to a guy in Miami who was buying up used old surplus ammo and reselling it to the Pentagon as new. We spent billions for Halliburton to build McDonalds and Burger Kings on military bases in Iraq.

If you think all of that $800 billion goes towards "protecting us", then you might as well believe that no one cheats the "welfare" system. Both beliefs are very "silly".

We spend more than half the world combined on defense spending, and the possibility of fighting China, Russia, Germany, or any other large country is essentially zero because our economies are interdependent. How does one bomb a country that owns over $1 trillion in US Treasury Bills?

If you are going to complain about 2% of the budget, you might want to consider how money is being spent in the other 98% of the budget.

Ignoring defense spending when talking about EBT card abuse, is either irrational or disingenuous on your part.

If we need to spend an infinite amount of money to keep us safe from real and imagined threats, then the left is going to insist on spending an infinite amount on social programs. You can't balance the budget without cuts across the board, and more taxes. Thinking we can fix our budget simply by eliminating welfare spending is silly, but I bet you will be voting for the first person who tells you that.

And to everyone complaining about "poor people", you might want to look at the data of who is actually enrolling in the military and getting shot at. Most of the guys on the ground doing the work, are from poor families. And OMG many of them weren't even American citizens while getting shot at in places like Falluhjah.Some of them even have sex with other men.

You are just creating or using a "scape-goat" to blame for America's problems. Your indifference to facts, and unwillingness to vote for anyone who rescinds your "unearned" tax credits, is a much bigger problem than the "fraud" in welfare spending.

Multiple Choice Question:

Which of following is the biggest strain on the Federal Budget?

A. $800 billion defense budget

B. $1.2 TRILLION in tax credits (student loan deductions, mortgage deductions, child tax credit, 401K deductions, etc. )

C. $66 billion dollar food-stamp program

Hint: C is the least of our problems. Circling C means you aren't serious about discussing the Federal budget and you shouldn't post on such topics.

"If you are going to complain about 2% of the budget, you might want to consider how money is being spent in the other 98% of the budget."

__________________________________

You also may not read very well as I've stated I have no problem with decreasing an inflated defense budget as well. Did I not consider how the other 98% of the budget I'd allocated or did I just dream I did?

Yeah, great analogy. Except if you don't trim the hedges, poor children starve.