CDZ redistribution of wealth

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

 

[Andylusion]

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

No. It is not. "general welfare" is not an enumerated power. The General Welfare, was a LIMITATION. The Enumerated power in question was the ability to Tax and Spend. The General Welfare, was a limitation on the enumerated power.

James Madison wrote this in 1817.
James Madison Veto of federal public works bill March 3 1817

In this letter to Congress, by then president Madison, he is considering a bill to tax the public, and pay for public works, which includes water ways, roads, and other construction.

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.​

So Madison is saying that the bill violates the Constitution, and thus he will object and return it back to the House.

Why?

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.
​

So apparently general welfare is not itself, an enumerated power, or he would not have said this.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.​

Well what do you know? So to claim that general welfare was an open power, would in fact completely undermine the entire purpose of having 'defined and limited' powers, which was the purpose of the constitution.

So.... what have we learned? General welfare is not an enumerated power. Madison said it wasn't, and he helped write the constitution.

The General Welfare is not a power, it's a limitation. It was to prevent government from taxing different groups at different rates (like you have to have health insurance, or you pay higher tax), and prevent them from giving out money to specific groups over others (like you are poor, so here's free health care at everyone else's expense).

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

 

[rdean]

Yanno...............I lived in a place where I had to pay rent.

The rent was held by the landlord, and when necessary, it was given out to those who could fix whatever was wrong with the property, be it plumbing (an issue that came up on occasion), or property, or whatever.

The wealth was "re-distributed" by the owner when things went wrong.

We currently have a problem with infrastructure, yet we've paid taxes for quite a while, and the GOP is trying to cut tax rates for the rich.

Sorry, but the rich use the same roads, and they face the same risks, yet pay a substantial less percentage than those of us who are middle to lower income class.

If a road swallowed up, or a bridge collapsed, or the road had potholes and caused a crash of a significant American (such as a Congressman or Senator), how quick do you think that the roads would get fixed?

I-35W bridge disaster re-created in ABC s new In an Instant - TwinCities.com

13 died and 145 injured. Somewhere Republicans are giggling, "We refuse to waste money on something that should be built by, by, by someone else. NOT with money taken from me for no reason".

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

No. It is not. "general welfare" is not an enumerated power. The General Welfare, was a LIMITATION. The Enumerated power in question was the ability to Tax and Spend. The General Welfare, was a limitation on the enumerated power.

James Madison wrote this in 1817.
James Madison Veto of federal public works bill March 3 1817

In this letter to Congress, by then president Madison, he is considering a bill to tax the public, and pay for public works, which includes water ways, roads, and other construction.

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.​

So Madison is saying that the bill violates the Constitution, and thus he will object and return it back to the House.

Why?

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.
​

So apparently general welfare is not itself, an enumerated power, or he would not have said this.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.​

Well what do you know? So to claim that general welfare was an open power, would in fact completely undermine the entire purpose of having 'defined and limited' powers, which was the purpose of the constitution.

So.... what have we learned? General welfare is not an enumerated power. Madison said it wasn't, and he helped write the constitution.

The General Welfare is not a power, it's a limitation. It was to prevent government from taxing different groups at different rates (like you have to have health insurance, or you pay higher tax), and prevent them from giving out money to specific groups over others (like you are poor, so here's free health care at everyone else's expense).

I am on the left and have been practicing poetry and know it. You complain about any latitude of construction regarding general welfare; I complain about the right practicing the general warfare and the common offense.

Private laws in the US render irrelevant, the untenable position of the right regarding the general welfare.

The right has to prove, that even simple public sector handouts, don't promote or provide for the general welfare of the United States.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

No a war on poverty is not general welfare of the country. It's individual welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

No a war on poverty is not general welfare of the country. It's individual welfare.

So, individual or private welfare is encompassed in the general welfare "cohort".

 

[RKMBrown]

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

No a war on poverty is not general welfare of the country. It's individual welfare.

So, individual or private welfare is encompassed in the general welfare "cohort".

No it is not. That's like saying if one person is on trial we are all on trial. You may associate general as meaning individuals too, but that is not what general welfare means. You don't get to re-write the Constitution by changing the definition of the terms used.

 

[there4eyeM]

Taxing the poor to pay for general welfare (infrastructure, defense/war, health care, etc.) while not fairly taxing others to do so is, indeed, 'giving' the others the money they didn't spend on taxes. That would be distribution of wealth to some through not taking money from them.

 

[there4eyeM]

The mention of education was not about standardization. It was about taking a sector that had historically been private enterprise for the most part and seeing to it collectively.

 

[Andylusion]

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

 

[Andylusion]

Taxing the poor to pay for general welfare (infrastructure, defense/war, health care, etc.) while not fairly taxing others to do so is, indeed, 'giving' the others the money they didn't spend on taxes. That would be distribution of wealth to some through not taking money from them.

Most of the income tax in our country, is paid by the rich. Most poor people pay zero income tax.

So that claim is bogus.

 

[there4eyeM]

Taxing the poor to pay for general welfare (infrastructure, defense/war, health care, etc.) while not fairly taxing others to do so is, indeed, 'giving' the others the money they didn't spend on taxes. That would be distribution of wealth to some through not taking money from them.

Most of the income tax in our country, is paid by the rich. Most poor people pay zero income tax.

So that claim is bogus.

It is not a claim. It is a statement about when it happens. And there are ample examples of it happening.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

No a war on poverty is not general welfare of the country. It's individual welfare.

So, individual or private welfare is encompassed in the general welfare "cohort".

No it is not. That's like saying if one person is on trial we are all on trial. You may associate general as meaning individuals too, but that is not what general welfare means. You don't get to re-write the Constitution by changing the definition of the terms used.

I am not defining any Thing. It is those of your point of view that are appealing to ignorance of the law, willfully.

Providing for the general welfare is as limited as providing for the common defense; for comparison and contrast.

In any case, why not submit your suggestions for better promoting the general welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

No a war on poverty is not general welfare of the country. It's individual welfare.

So, individual or private welfare is encompassed in the general welfare "cohort".

No it is not. That's like saying if one person is on trial we are all on trial. You may associate general as meaning individuals too, but that is not what general welfare means. You don't get to re-write the Constitution by changing the definition of the terms used.

I am not defining any Thing. It is those of your point of view that are appealing to ignorance of the law, willfully.

Providing for the general welfare is as limited as providing for the common defense; for comparison and contrast.

In any case, why not submit your suggestions for better promoting the general welfare?

I have hundreds of times. But you may have missed them.. Hand-ups instead of hand-outs. Loans instead of re-distribution of wealth. Reward responsibility, not irresponsibility. Let corporations fail and go through bankruptcy court instead of rewarding them for failing with a fat check.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

 

[ralfy]

The mention of education was not about standardization. It was about taking a sector that had historically been private enterprise for the most part and seeing to it collectively.

From what I remember, for centuries informal schools were set up by communities. After that, industrialists helped in setting up a public education system with standards, hierarchies, etc. Hence, year levels, grades, etc., all of which were used as the basis for hiring and training workers for corporations.

Thus, education had been controlled by private enterprise from the start. The difference is that the latter stage involved a financial elite that controlled large corporations, an inevitable result of capitalism.

 

[ralfy]

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.