Would the people who are not on welfare support my proposal to redefine "general welfare"?

Question

I've decided to redefine the words "general welfare" to mean send money to me. Would that be OK?

After seeing how gays have successfully redefined the word "marriage," I was thinking about what words I might like to redefine.

So I was thinking about the words "general welfare" in the Constitution, and I realized it would be good redefine that, too.

Why not redefine "general welfare" to mean, if you give one dollar to someone on government assistance for any reason, you also have to give a dollar to every man, woman, and child in the USA at the same time.

That would eliminate the jealously among people who feel like their tax money is being given to lazy bums and parasites, if they would get the same money everybody else gets.

I know I would feel a lot better if I got a government check in the mail like the Obama voters do.

Who would agree to change this definition?

I think anyone who opposes making this change is just trying to force their ideas on us and resist change. And that isn't the American way.

We should all have the freedom to do what we want. And I want this.

Answer 1

Might as well. Let's redefine Freedom and Liberty as well. While we are at it let's redefine employment too. I need more time off.

Answer 2

Use the one the Framers used!



Promote: To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement or excellence of any thing valuable.



welfare: exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

Answer 3

Why not, if Democrats can grab power by changing the meanings of words...Why not everyone

Answer 4

Reruns already?

Answer 5

Only if your down for the struggle...

The 0bama Web Site is....

Thanks for calling.

Answer 6

fallacies,....You just hate Monger cause you're bored..frustrated

Answer 7

No.