AP: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[logical4u]

Try again, dumbass.

Promoting individual welfare does promote the general welfare. We can't be healthy and prosperous as a nation if we're a significant portion of us are poor and sick.

Try again dumbass... it's not hard to research what was meant with the statement of promoting the general welfare or providing for the general welfare of the United States...

Robbing the wealth of Canada and redistributing it among US citizens would promote the general welfare as well.. it does not give the government the authority to do such a thing

You also make the mistake of tying individual well being with the well being of the populace and citizenry as a whole

You are not owed jack shit for your personal well being or to take care of your personal responsibilities at the expense of the government or any other citizen...

Try again, dumbass.

The whole is the sum of the parts. A country of diseased paupers cannot be healthy and prosperous.

Yet our congress just voted to make it so. There will be no health care under the gov run system and there will be no money to pay for it, because the gov has ruined the economy with its deficit spending (read about Zimbawe). We will get diseases with no doctors (they will have moved to more profitable locations or professions), the hospitals will not be maintained (that money will be needed to keep the corrupt politicians in power), and the money people would have used for prosperity will be used to support loved ones for black market health care. Obama....trickle up poverty.

 

[edthecynic]

Promoting individual welfare does promote the general welfare. We can't be healthy and prosperous as a nation if we're a significant portion of us are poor and sick.

Hmmmmm... Whose word should we take on the meaning of the General Welfare clause?...yours?... or James "Father of the Constitution" Madison's?

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."
-- James Madison


Such a quandary.....

That's easy since Madison was the only founding father of the constitution, no wait a minute, there were other founding fathers.
Well they all agreed on every point in the constitution, no wait a minute, they didn't.
Well let's see what founding father Hamilton said:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

 

[logical4u]

[
Corporations just pass their costs on to consumers anyway.

That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

Question: where does a corporation get its 'income'?

Second question: If a corporation does not turn a profit, does it stay in business?

 

[saveliberty]

[
Corporations just pass their costs on to consumers anyway.

That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

1. Contract didn't cover actual expenses.
2. Rolling costs back for tax purposes.
3. Legal suit costs.
4. Incorrectly calculated sales levels.
5. Inventory build ups.
6. Fines.
7. Unanticipated expenses.

All of which will be figured into pricing going forward.

 

[boedicca]

The government doesn't prop me up, you moron. I work my ass off and don't get paid much for it.

But I'm taking steps to remedy it. I fully intend to join the IRS. The few, the proud...the anal. Alternately, I'll hire on with child welfare.

BTW, I do not claim my child care. This cuts my tax return by about $3000. Instead of picking up $9,000, I only get $6000 back in taxes.

I earn $30000, and I pay about $400 in taxes each month. Which means I pay $4800 a year.

I'm pulling in $1200 above what I pay. I could be pulling in $4200 above what I pay, but I don't do that.

So you can eat me, Ravi.

You still are getting back more than you pay. So you eat me, you twit. Or stop whining.

No, YOU eat ME.

I suggest you get your shots first.

 

[boedicca]

Nonsense.

WikiAnswers - What does Promote the general welfare mean

Not nonsense.

It's in the Preamble.

General welfare (at that time) meant keeping invaders from attacking your family or property, not give aways. Today, we call that 'national securtiy'.

General welfare is not the government taking away from some people to give to others.

 

[Murf76]

Promoting individual welfare does promote the general welfare. We can't be healthy and prosperous as a nation if we're a significant portion of us are poor and sick.

Hmmmmm... Whose word should we take on the meaning of the General Welfare clause?...yours?... or James "Father of the Constitution" Madison's?

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."
-- James Madison


Such a quandary.....

That's easy since Madison was the only founding father of the constitution, no wait a minute, there were other founding fathers.
Well they all agreed on every point in the constitution, no wait a minute, they didn't.
Well let's see what founding father Hamilton said:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers was written in 1791... after ratification. This is something of a reversal from his Federalist essays. And while it has been utilized by the Supreme Court (Steward Machine Co. v. Collector), bear in mind that FDR had threatened to pack the court at the time, so one can certainly argue that decisions made during this era were coerced.

Also... check out the last sentence in your quote. Even Hamilton wasn't willing to commit to actions "not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication".

When we apply a little common sense, it only stands to reason that if Hamilton had been running around during ratification, claiming the right of the federal government to do whatever the fuck it wanted in the name of whatever arbitrary view of "general welfare" that popped into Congress' little air-filled heads... we'd still be operating under The Articles of Confederation.

The Hamilton argument, despite its frequent use by statists, fails the I-didn't-just-fall-off-the-turnip-truck test because it defies logic.

 

[edthecynic]

Hmmmmm... Whose word should we take on the meaning of the General Welfare clause?...yours?... or James "Father of the Constitution" Madison's?

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."
-- James Madison


Such a quandary.....

That's easy since Madison was the only founding father of the constitution, no wait a minute, there were other founding fathers.
Well they all agreed on every point in the constitution, no wait a minute, they didn't.
Well let's see what founding father Hamilton said:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers was written in 1791... after ratification. This is something of a reversal from his Federalist essays. And while it has been utilized by the Supreme Court (Steward Machine Co. v. Collector), bear in mind that FDR had threatened to pack the court at the time, so one can certainly argue that decisions made during this era were coerced.

Also... check out the last sentence in your quote. Even Hamilton wasn't willing to commit to actions "not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication".

When we apply a little common sense, it only stands to reason that if Hamilton had been running around during ratification, claiming the right of the federal government to do whatever the fuck it wanted in the name of whatever arbitrary view of "general welfare" that popped into Congress' little air-filled heads... we'd still be operating under The Articles of Confederation.

The Hamilton argument, despite its frequent use by statists, fails the I-didn't-just-fall-off-the-turnip-truck test because it defies logic.

Of course Hamilton said a little more than your out of context little snippet of less than a sentence Straw Man. I indicated in red the context.

The Madison argument, despite its frequent use by hateists, fails the I-didn't-just-fall-off-the-turnip-truck test because it defies the Constitution as determined by the SCOTUS. The Hamiltonian interpretation was settled by the SCOTUS long before FDR!!!

Hamilton and Jefferson fought about the meaning of "general welfare" in several important cases:

"Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank," to establish a national bank to handle taxes, borrowing and debt payments.

"Report on Manufactures,'' seeking government support for industry to keep the economy strong and well-supplied in case of war.

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, decided that the Hamiltonian view was established as our fundamental law. Marshall's 1819 opinion in the case involving the National Bank, (McCulloch v. Maryland,) is a milestone for the confirmation of the national government's exercise of its implied powers

 

[bucs90]

Hey liberals, let me ask you a question:

If you and your ilk went out to dinner one night, and the check came, and you realized all your checks were too high and asked why? You were told "Well, sir, see there are 100 people in this diner tonight. 50 of you make a great living, and ate well tonight did you not? Well, the other 50 here need to eat also. Oh, they make enough to order something small to eat, but they want dessert also. Maybe even an appetizer. They won't get the Filet Mignon or Lobster like you had, they'll only get sirloin or chicken at best, but if we DID NOT make your check higher, they'd be forced to eat hot dogs and grilled cheese sandwiches. So, we're gonna make your bill a bit higher so that they can have a little more than they can afford. And we have armed men at the door to use violence if necessary to force you to pay this higher bill. Thanks for dining with us, come again.


Liberals: Would you be OK with that? Would you ever dine there again? Because you are those people who are whining and wanting others to pay your bill. Fucking leeches on society.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey liberals, let me ask you a question:Blah Blah Blah...

Liberals: Would you be OK with that? Would you ever dine there again? Because you are those people who are whining and wanting others to pay your bill. Fucking leeches on society.

Another typical CON$ervoFascist Welfare Queen jealously pretending that CON$ are more financially successful than Libs.
Get a job you worthless slacker.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.
Yeah, it's well documented that most welfare queens are conservatives.

 

[Murf76]

Of course Hamilton said a little more than your out of context little snippet of less than a sentence Straw Man. I indicated in red the context.

The Madison argument, despite its frequent use by hateists, fails the I-didn't-just-fall-off-the-turnip-truck test because it defies the Constitution as determined by the SCOTUS. The Hamiltonian interpretation was settled by the SCOTUS long before FDR!!!

Hamilton and Jefferson fought about the meaning of "general welfare" in several important cases:

"Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank," to establish a national bank to handle taxes, borrowing and debt payments.

"Report on Manufactures,'' seeking government support for industry to keep the economy strong and well-supplied in case of war.

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, decided that the Hamiltonian view was established as our fundamental law. Marshall's 1819 opinion in the case involving the National Bank, (McCulloch v. Maryland,) is a milestone for the confirmation of the national government's exercise of its implied powers

Go ahead and look at the entire sentence. What he's saying essentially is that Congress is authorized "in express terms" to appropriate money, but that they can't use it for anything that's not authorized by the Constitution, "either expressly or by fair implication".

Hamilton was NOT going around suggesting that Congress could act in arbitrary ways, counter to the written Constitution. He was a bit of an asshole, often defaming his contemporaries and out fucking someone else's wife at the time of Report on Manufacturers .... but even he would not have gone so far. In fact, in Federalist 84, he writes:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

And also:

"There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions."

So firm is Hamilton in his assertion that the U.S. Constitution LIMITS the power of federal government that he doesn't even believe a Bill of Rights is necessary!



Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers has been repeatedly used as a feeble excuse for federal power grabs. Almost everything written during the era runs counter to the twisted interpretation used by statists, even Hamilton himself.

Further, common sense tells us that if anybody had been running around claiming that Congress could make arbitrary law on whatever interpretation of "the General Welfare it took a notion to make... the Constitution would NOT have been ratified! The 10th was included in order to put to rest any unease about this.

The proof that previous, statist usage of Hamilton is a depredation upon the original meaning of the document and a HUGE MISTAKE is readily witnessed in the fact that the entitlement programs brought to life by it are breaking us.
IOW, it's lead us so far astray that we now face an existential threat to the country itself through our debt load.

It was wrong then... it's wrong now. But rather than correct a deviation from the true path laid out for us by our founders, leftists would like to BUILD on that mistake in order to further deprive us of the freedom that was our birthright, and all so they can get some free cheese from the government.


McCulloch did not give Congress the authority to make up any "implied powers" it might want. It gave an opinion on the Necessary and Proper Clause which allowed "implied power" for the purpose of carrying out it's ENUMERATED powers under the U.S. Constitution. In that decision, Marshall wrote:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional"

Bottom line... There's no enumerated power which allows Congress to manage our healthcare or to interpret whatever meaning it might want from the phrase "General Welfare". Note, that only the most retarded among the idiots on Capitol Hill are bothering with "the General Welfare" argument. Most are claiming authority through "the Commerce Clause"... which is also a FAIL because inactivity is not commerce, even by the modernized definition of the word.

 

[saveliberty]

Hey liberals, let me ask you a question:Blah Blah Blah...

Liberals: Would you be OK with that? Would you ever dine there again? Because you are those people who are whining and wanting others to pay your bill. Fucking leeches on society.

Another typical CON$ervoFascist Welfare Queen jealously pretending that CON$ are more financially successful than Libs.
Get a job you worthless slacker.

Actually some of us have caught on to the game and are planning to join the 50% of entitlement folks. We know you can't tip over Guam, but you can tip over a federal government built on some paying for all.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course Hamilton said a little more than your out of context little snippet of less than a sentence Straw Man. I indicated in red the context.

The Madison argument, despite its frequent use by hateists, fails the I-didn't-just-fall-off-the-turnip-truck test because it defies the Constitution as determined by the SCOTUS. The Hamiltonian interpretation was settled by the SCOTUS long before FDR!!!

Hamilton and Jefferson fought about the meaning of "general welfare" in several important cases:

"Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank," to establish a national bank to handle taxes, borrowing and debt payments.

"Report on Manufactures,'' seeking government support for industry to keep the economy strong and well-supplied in case of war.

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, decided that the Hamiltonian view was established as our fundamental law. Marshall's 1819 opinion in the case involving the National Bank, (McCulloch v. Maryland,) is a milestone for the confirmation of the national government's exercise of its implied powers

Go ahead and look at the entire sentence. What he's saying essentially is that Congress is authorized "in express terms" to appropriate money, but that they can't use it for anything that's not authorized by the Constitution, "either expressly or by fair implication".

Hamilton was NOT going around suggesting that Congress could act in arbitrary ways, counter to the written Constitution. He was a bit of an asshole, often defaming his contemporaries and out fucking someone else's wife at the time of Report on Manufacturers .... but even he would not have gone so far. In fact, in Federalist 84, he writes:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

And also:

"There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions."

So firm is Hamilton in his assertion that the U.S. Constitution LIMITS the power of federal government that he doesn't even believe a Bill of Rights is necessary!



Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers has been repeatedly used as a feeble excuse for federal power grabs. Almost everything written during the era runs counter to the twisted interpretation used by statists, even Hamilton himself.

Further, common sense tells us that if anybody had been running around claiming that Congress could make arbitrary law on whatever interpretation of "the General Welfare it took a notion to make... the Constitution would NOT have been ratified! The 10th was included in order to put to rest any unease about this.

The proof that previous, statist usage of Hamilton is a depredation upon the original meaning of the document and a HUGE MISTAKE is readily witnessed in the fact that the entitlement programs brought to life by it are breaking us.
IOW, it's lead us so far astray that we now face an existential threat to the country itself through our debt load.

It was wrong then... it's wrong now. But rather than correct a deviation from the true path laid out for us by our founders, leftists would like to BUILD on that mistake in order to further deprive us of the freedom that was our birthright, and all so they can get some free cheese from the government.


McCulloch did not give Congress the authority to make up any "implied powers" it might want. It gave an opinion on the Necessary and Proper Clause which allowed "implied power" for the purpose of carrying out it's ENUMERATED powers under the U.S. Constitution. In that decision, Marshall wrote:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional"

Bottom line... There's no enumerated power which allows Congress to manage our healthcare or to interpret whatever meaning it might want from the phrase "General Welfare". Note, that only the most retarded among the idiots on Capitol Hill are bothering with "the General Welfare" argument. Most are claiming authority through "the Commerce Clause"... which is also a FAIL because inactivity is not commerce, even by the modernized definition of the word.

You can always tell when hateists know the argument is lost, they resort to several tactics. They make personal attacks like bringing up Hamilton's sex acts, they try to change the subject, like bringing up the bill of rights.
Another thing they do is demand you do what they will not do, like demanding the whole sentence be read while they take a few words here and there and making a sentence with their own words substituted. If you notice, I posted the whole quote and highlighted the important parts with the full quote there for context. Even in your Marshall quote I didn't take a few words of his and add mine, I highlighted the words that contradict your interpretation.

So, as I highlighted earlier, Hamilton made it clear that "general welfare" signified more than what was expressed in the Constitution and the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE made the determination. And clearly Marshall upheld that interpretation from what I highlighted in your post.

And it is not entitlement programs that have put us into debt, it was Reagan and both Bushes who ran up most of the debt and they were against entitlements. It was the military-industrial complex spending, predicted by Eisenhower, that ran up the debt.

 

[Againsheila]

Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax
Credits for low- and middle-income families exempt many

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

Ever hear the saying "you can't get blood out of a stone?" And I think the title is wrong. Betcha most of that "half" are immigrants, not Americans. Immigrants do have an average of 7.5 kids while Americans have less than 2 kids per family.

 

[edthecynic]

Lol.
Yeah, it's well documented that most welfare queens are conservatives.

Well, it's well documented that Libs are more financially successful than CON$ervative slackers. I think it is quite generous of the wealthier "Limousine Liberal" achievers to offer to pay higher taxes to support the underachieving CON$ while not raising taxes on earners under $250,000.

 

[Murf76]

You can always tell when hateists know the argument is lost, they resort to several tactics. They make personal attacks like bringing up Hamilton's sex acts, they try to change the subject, like bringing up the bill of rights.
Another thing they do is demand you do what they will not do, like demanding the whole sentence be read while they take a few words here and there and making a sentence with their own words substituted. If you notice, I posted the whole quote and highlighted the important parts with the full quote there for context. Even in your Marshall quote I didn't take a few words of his and add mine, I highlighted the words that contradict your interpretation.

So, as I highlighted earlier, Hamilton made it clear that "general welfare" signified more than what was expressed in the Constitution and the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE made the determination. And clearly Marshall upheld that interpretation from what I highlighted in your post.

And it is not entitlement programs that have put us into debt, it was Reagan and both Bushes who ran up most of the debt and they were against entitlements. It was the military-industrial complex spending, predicted by Eisenhower, that ran up the debt.

I point out that Hamilton wasn't a particularly nice guy, not as a deflection, but so as make a real person out of him, one whose motivation is not above reproach. He was ambitious, and not above intrigue and manipulation. I think it's important that we understand that Hamilton's opinion on the Constitution wasn't necessarily untainted by whatever iron he might have had in the fire at a given time.

Neither is my mention of The Bill of Rights a deflection. We're talking about a guy who, during ratification, claimed that the language of the Constitution was so unambiguous that a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary. Now, whether that was another of his machinations is subject to debate, but undeniably... that was his claim.

As far as the budget is concerned.... defense spending is down, even though we're at war on two fronts. Nondiscretionary spending eats through about two-thirds of our budget. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are unsustainable... and what did Obama and his socialist lackeys in Congress do?... give us yet another reckless entitlement, disregarding the fact that none so far have stayed within budgetary guidelines.

Check the graph:
Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased


p.s. I have no idea what it is that's got you so bent out of shape about highlighting... but whatever. All the information was still there, readily available for reading in context. Get a fucking grip, dude. Seriously.

 

[edthecynic]

You can always tell when hateists know the argument is lost, they resort to several tactics. They make personal attacks like bringing up Hamilton's sex acts, they try to change the subject, like bringing up the bill of rights.
Another thing they do is demand you do what they will not do, like demanding the whole sentence be read while they take a few words here and there and making a sentence with their own words substituted. If you notice, I posted the whole quote and highlighted the important parts with the full quote there for context. Even in your Marshall quote I didn't take a few words of his and add mine, I highlighted the words that contradict your interpretation.

So, as I highlighted earlier, Hamilton made it clear that "general welfare" signified more than what was expressed in the Constitution and the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE made the determination. And clearly Marshall upheld that interpretation from what I highlighted in your post.

And it is not entitlement programs that have put us into debt, it was Reagan and both Bushes who ran up most of the debt and they were against entitlements. It was the military-industrial complex spending, predicted by Eisenhower, that ran up the debt.

I point out that Hamilton wasn't a particularly nice guy, not as a deflection, but so as make a real person out of him, one whose motivation is not above reproach. He was ambitious, and not above intrigue and manipulation. I think it's important that we understand that Hamilton's opinion on the Constitution wasn't necessarily untainted by whatever iron he might have had in the fire at a given time.

Neither is my mention of The Bill of Rights a deflection. We're talking about a guy who, during ratification, claimed that the language of the Constitution was so unambiguous that a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary. Now, whether that was another of his machinations is subject to debate, but undeniably... that was his claim.

As far as the budget is concerned.... defense spending is down, even though we're at war on two fronts. Nondiscretionary spending eats through about two-thirds of our budget. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are unsustainable... and what did Obama and his socialist lackeys in Congress do?... give us yet another reckless entitlement, disregarding the fact that none so far have stayed within budgetary guidelines.

Check the graph:
Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased


p.s. I have no idea what it is that's got you so bent out of shape about highlighting... but whatever. All the information was still there, readily available for reading in context. Get a fucking grip, dude. Seriously.

Humanizing Hamilton has nothing to do with "general welfare" and you know it. But it does show how CON$ can rationalize anything.

And the radical extremist Heritage Foundation is hardly a credible source, especially when they don't enumerate what they are and are not counting as military spending.

Here is a good article showing the difference between the stated defense budget and the REAL defense related spending.

UNDERNEWS: THE REAL DEFENSE BUDGET

Add it all together, and you get $974 billion - almost $1 trillion.

If you want to know how much we spend for defense in a generic sense, you can about double the $534 billion many articles will report.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Lol.
Yeah, it's well documented that most welfare queens are conservatives.

Well, it's well documented that Libs are more financially successful than CON$ervative slackers. I think it is quite generous of the wealthier "Limousine Liberal" achievers to offer to pay higher taxes to support the underachieving CON$ while not raising taxes on earners under $250,000.

So when the lazy fuck liberals like you don't purchase health insurance and have to pay a fine from your paltry 20,000 dollar a year jizzmopper job...what will you call it? A redirected low income citizen to government subsidy?

 

[Murf76]

Humanizing Hamilton has nothing to do with "general welfare" and you know it. But it does show how CON$ can rationalize anything.

And the radical extremist Heritage Foundation is hardly a credible source, especially when they don't enumerate what they are and are not counting as military spending.

Here is a good article showing the difference between the stated defense budget and the REAL defense related spending.

UNDERNEWS: THE REAL DEFENSE BUDGET

Add it all together, and you get $974 billion - almost $1 trillion.

If you want to know how much we spend for defense in a generic sense, you can about double the $534 billion many articles will report.

The General Welfare Clause is not an enumerated power.... at least, it's not supposed to be. Weird how we get a whole new interpretation when one threatens to pack the court with his own people 'til he gets his way though, huh?

FDR only got Social Security through by coercion. And Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers from 1791, after ratification, was used to give the illusion of authenticity. Medicare and Medicaid are predicated off of that little bit of evil arm-twisting... and they're busting our asses today.

You can complain about the Heritage Foundation as a source if you like. Hell, I stopped reading your link at the word "progressive". I wouldn't believe water was wet if a "progressive" told me it was so. They're little more than thieves in my book.

But that doesn't change the fact that national security is a clearly enumerated power and social welfare at the federal level is NOT. And I really don't care if military spending upsets you. Airmail yourself to Afghanistan if you like. Maybe you can talk the terrorists around to your way of thinking.

What I care about is that my children enjoy the security and liberty that is their birthright as Americans.