CDZ Tax and Spend, or Don't tax and Spend, Or

[Wry Catcher]

let's cut taxes and not spend.

That is the question & the reader has an opportunity to express which should dominate. In doing so, I would like to see some thought into what are the major priorities that need to be funded, don't need to be funded, and to consider the cost-benefits and cost-deficits for the immediate future and for future generations.

Substantive, thought provoking and thoughtful comments are expected; this is the clean debate zone so please honor the rules.

 

[TNHarley]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

 

[task0778]

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

 

[TNHarley]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

exactly

 

[Wry Catcher]

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

exactly

"exactly"?

 

[task0778]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

 

[TNHarley]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

exactly

"exactly"?

yes.
health, education and welfare would be a good start.
Although, i do think education could be considered constitutional. Be a good debate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

exactly

"exactly"?

yes.
health, education and welfare would be a good start.
Although, i do think education could be considered constitutional. Be a good debate.

I'm still confused, what do you mean by "education could be considered constitutional", and not health or welfare (welfare in terms of the nation, not individual entitlements)?

 

[task0778]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

 

[TNHarley]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

exactly

"exactly"?

yes.
health, education and welfare would be a good start.
Although, i do think education could be considered constitutional. Be a good debate.

I'm still confused, what do you mean by "education could be considered constitutional", and not health or welfare (welfare in terms of the nation, not individual entitlements)?

Like DoE
What do you mean by welfare in terms of the nation?

 

[TNHarley]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

When it boils down to the individual, it isnt right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

AIDS & UC San Francisco spent money for the research and treatment of both a cure and a treatment. IMO both "provide for he common defence and the general Welfare of the United States" and humanity.

 

[task0778]

Dont tax much and dont spend much.
The federal govt should do what the COTUS says it should do and quit spending money on programs and policies that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Man, talk about being on the horns of a dilemna. In my view, we had to cut corporate taxes to bring the US into line with most other 1st world countries. We have to be competitive when it comes to business taxes and regulations, otherwise we risk making other countries as a more attractive place to move operations, plus our own exports are more expensive. I hate the idea of more debt and deficits, especially with the likelihood of rising interest rates making just the interest payments much larger going forward. Not good, many think the most recent drop in the stock market is due at least in part to that problem, rising rates choking off business expansions and startups.

So, I turn to spending, which is where the gov't just has to make some major reforms. The news this morning is that the Senate appears to have struck a deal on the budget, by raising gov't spending by about $300 billion over the next 2 years. So, more spending and less revenue, don't like it. If it was me, I wouldn't have increased spending at all, freeze it. I think we've got to go some form of block spending where the DoD gets a block of money and spends it without Congress sticking their fingers into it. Same for non-defense spending, we gotta put a cork into the bottle. Medicare and Obamacare have GOT to be reined in, and there are some federal programs such as college loans and grants that the federal gov't has no business getting involved in. And I think areas such as housing and health care are not really in the federal gov'ts purview, frankly we just cannot afford to be.

Would the Democrats support such actions? Uh, no. Many Repubs wouldn't either probably. But I'll tell you what, there are absolutely no real world examples of any country that fixed it's problems without spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. There are however examples where spending cuts did turn a country's fiscal situation around from dire to promising. Canada for one, back in the 90s, look it up.

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

AIDS & UC San Francisco spent money for the research and treatment of both a cure and a treatment. IMO both "provide for he common defence and the general Welfare of the United States" and humanity.

That's nice. So what? That 'General Welfare' clause is kinda broad, doesn't really say what the limit is or isn't for whatever functions the federal gov't should do. Since healthcare isn't specifically stated, it becomes a matter of opinion. For almost the first 200 years the US Gov't had nothing to do with HC, so what changed?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Such as health, education and welfare? Please post the cost-benefits of your choice and the cost-deficits too. Apply the same test to Art. I, sec 8, framed by (if you like) this opinion:

Guide to the Constitution

No than

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking response. One point which I find to be critical is the benefits and deficits in Federal Budgets. Consider the link (Guide to the Constitution) and health care.

No where in Art I. sec 8 is health care discussed. That the Founders were educated men, some must have known about the work of Edward Jenner and his success in treating small pox in England, and yet President Washington was treated by blood letting decades after Jenner's success:

Bloodletting and blisters: Solving the medical mystery of George Washington’s death

These two points are not conclusive that Washington could have been successfully treated, it is the politics of the issue today that implies, or at least I infer from the comments of some, that COTUS is not, nor should it grow as lessons are learned, technology grows and the world itself is ever changing.

The meaning in Art I. sec 8, clause 1 should, IMO, be expanded, not limited by the thinking of men who never a clear vision of the world in the 21st Century.

Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

AIDS & UC San Francisco spent money for the research and treatment of both a cure and a treatment. IMO both "provide for he common defence and the general Welfare of the United States" and humanity.

That's nice. So what? That 'General Welfare' clause is kinda broad, doesn't really say what the limit is or isn't for whatever functions the federal gov't should do. Since healthcare isn't specifically stated, it becomes a matter of opinion. For almost the first 200 years the US Gov't had nothing to do with HC, so what changed?

Medicine! Among thousands of other things.

"That's nice"? That's why I've coined the phrase, "Callous Conservative".

That said, President Lincoln once said at Gettysburg, "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Q. Is this why Romney made the infamous remark about Corporations]

The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

We have not yet perished, but the ethos have markedly changed, as has our landscape and the number of our citizens. Apparently, the new iteration of conservative seeks not to conserve but to destroy. Not that I consider Trump to be a conservative, he is by far more concerned about himself, than anyone or anything else; he and his coterie are iconoclasts who seek benefits for themselves but not for others.

 

[task0778]

No than
Some people believe it is not incumbent on the federal gov't to assume individual responsibilities such as health care.

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

AIDS & UC San Francisco spent money for the research and treatment of both a cure and a treatment. IMO both "provide for he common defence and the general Welfare of the United States" and humanity.

That's nice. So what? That 'General Welfare' clause is kinda broad, doesn't really say what the limit is or isn't for whatever functions the federal gov't should do. Since healthcare isn't specifically stated, it becomes a matter of opinion. For almost the first 200 years the US Gov't had nothing to do with HC, so what changed?

Medicine! Among thousands of other things.

"That's nice"? That's why I've coined the phrase, "Callous Conservative".

That said, President Lincoln once said at Gettysburg, "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Q. Is this why Romney made the infamous remark about Corporations]

The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

We have not yet perished, but the ethos have markedly changed, as has our landscape and the number of our citizens. Apparently, the new iteration of conservative seeks not to conserve but to destroy. Not that I consider Trump to be a conservative, he is by far more concerned about himself, than anyone or anything else; he and his coterie are iconoclasts who seek benefits for themselves but not for others.

Kinda left the thread didn't you. Got a little nasty too. Bye.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They are wrong. Is it good government to allow TB to spread, Polio to thrive, Ebola to sweep the nation? Contagious disease and Heart Disease can both be fatal, and both have impacts on the nation's economic welfare.

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

AIDS & UC San Francisco spent money for the research and treatment of both a cure and a treatment. IMO both "provide for he common defence and the general Welfare of the United States" and humanity.

That's nice. So what? That 'General Welfare' clause is kinda broad, doesn't really say what the limit is or isn't for whatever functions the federal gov't should do. Since healthcare isn't specifically stated, it becomes a matter of opinion. For almost the first 200 years the US Gov't had nothing to do with HC, so what changed?

Medicine! Among thousands of other things.

"That's nice"? That's why I've coined the phrase, "Callous Conservative".

That said, President Lincoln once said at Gettysburg, "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Q. Is this why Romney made the infamous remark about Corporations]

The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

We have not yet perished, but the ethos have markedly changed, as has our landscape and the number of our citizens. Apparently, the new iteration of conservative seeks not to conserve but to destroy. Not that I consider Trump to be a conservative, he is by far more concerned about himself, than anyone or anything else; he and his coterie are iconoclasts who seek benefits for themselves but not for others.

Kinda left the thread didn't you. Got a little nasty too. Bye.

I have a life, way beyond the keyboard. That said, my opinion is just that, and your comment demonstrated to me a callous disregard for others. It's really that simple, and it blossomed into "it's your money" during the Reagan years.

 

[task0778]

True, but there's a difference between trying to find cures and halting epidemics and subsidizing somebody's health care insurance.

AIDS & UC San Francisco spent money for the research and treatment of both a cure and a treatment. IMO both "provide for he common defence and the general Welfare of the United States" and humanity.

That's nice. So what? That 'General Welfare' clause is kinda broad, doesn't really say what the limit is or isn't for whatever functions the federal gov't should do. Since healthcare isn't specifically stated, it becomes a matter of opinion. For almost the first 200 years the US Gov't had nothing to do with HC, so what changed?

Medicine! Among thousands of other things.

"That's nice"? That's why I've coined the phrase, "Callous Conservative".

That said, President Lincoln once said at Gettysburg, "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Q. Is this why Romney made the infamous remark about Corporations]

The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

We have not yet perished, but the ethos have markedly changed, as has our landscape and the number of our citizens. Apparently, the new iteration of conservative seeks not to conserve but to destroy. Not that I consider Trump to be a conservative, he is by far more concerned about himself, than anyone or anything else; he and his coterie are iconoclasts who seek benefits for themselves but not for others.

Kinda left the thread didn't you. Got a little nasty too. Bye.

I have a life, way beyond the keyboard. That said, my opinion is just that, and your comment demonstrated to me a callous disregard for others. It's really that simple, and it blossomed into "it's your money" during the Reagan years.

No, it's not that simple. There are other ways to fix our health care problems besides using the federal gov't, which BTW is an abject failure. It's not a callous disregard for others, it's the possibility that there's a better way to get it done. You asked for opinions, remember? So you shouldn't be trashing those you don't agree with.