Forced Charity

Discussion in 'Congress' started by alan1, Apr 6, 2009.

  1. alan1
    Offline

    alan1 USMB Mod Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,845
    Thanks Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Shoveling the ashes
    Ratings:
    +3,769
    Forced Charity

    I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

    At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
    A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

    Now, I think I am a charitable man, and here are a few links to some of my favorite charitable organizations that I contributed to in 2008,

    Disabled American Veterans - Donate

    Donate Now

    American Red Cross: Donate Now

    National Marrow Donor Program: Contribute Now - support the work of the National Marrow Donor Program

    Susan G. Komen for the Cure | Donate | Donate

    Prostate Cancer Foundation

    What you may or may not notice from the above links is that the government gives taxpayer money to almost all of them. Even though I personally support every one of those charities linked above, I don’t want the government using tax dollars to support them.
    I don’t want the government deciding which charities are worthy of my taxes and which are not. It’s not theirs to give, Not Yours To Give - Colonel Davy Crockett
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,920

    Certainly you must know that there is no such clause in the Constitution. The perspective of the Founding Fathers is summarized by Madison:
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

    The father of the Democrat party, Andrew Jackson, vetoed bills for harbor repair, believing that it was a local obligation.
    THE RIVER AND HARBOR FRAUD. - Article Preview - The New York Times

    From earliest times in America, charity was a private, not public oblgation. “The Scot Charitable Society,” was organized in Boston in 1657.

    This concept marks a significant difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

    Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it.. This explains why conservative give more charity than liberals.

    A check of the charitable contribution history of President Obama and Vice-President Biden will verify this.
     
  3. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    Art I Sec 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"?
     
  4. Seraega
    Offline

    Seraega Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    293
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    Ratings:
    +27
    Winner. :clap2:

    Promote the general welfare... in other words, keep the people pacified so they don't bring their torches and pitchforks to bear on the AIG execs and other greedy bankers.
     
  5. alan1
    Offline

    alan1 USMB Mod Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,845
    Thanks Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Shoveling the ashes
    Ratings:
    +3,769
    So, do you think that extends to the government being able to tax a minority (smokers) to pay for another minorities (SCHIP recipients) general welfare?
    Suppose the government wanted to tax a minority (homosexuals) to pay for health care for another minority (Asians), would that be allowed under your interpretation of Article 1 Section 8?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    See, actually it's like this:

    The American Way - David Freddoso - The Corner on National Review Online

    You might want to google Todd Stroger, he's about as interesting at Rod Blagojevich, seriously. ;)
     
  7. random3434
    Offline

    random3434 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    25,903
    Thanks Received:
    7,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +7,194
    So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

    I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    Could be. The language sounds pretty broad. Reducing smoking giving the hundreds of thousands that die each year could probably be argued more for the general welfare than the latter case, though laws outright criminalizing homosexual behavior have been upheld so maybe taxing them would be too. I think the argument of paying health care for a racially based group would be a stretch.
     
  9. alan1
    Offline

    alan1 USMB Mod Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,845
    Thanks Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Shoveling the ashes
    Ratings:
    +3,769
    I think the government has no business targeting specific minority groups for taxation.
    And no business deciding what charities should be funded with tax payer dollars.
    Please read the last link in my original post.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

    I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page