The 'General Welfare' thread

[spectrumc01]

This is comical. Everyone has a different opinion of what "general welfare" means, yet the majority of people, to include politicians, would have us believe they are occupying a pew at the local church on Sunday. I wonder how the Republicans who are against welfare justify their actions to their faith.

Most will sit and try to figure out what the constitution means by "General Welfare" yet give less than two shits what their bible says about general welfare.

Don't you believe in "separation of church and state"? Are you confused?

The "general welfare" clause has nothign to do with the needs of individuals. Welfare or "relief" is not what the "welfare clause: is about.

I didn't think it needed an explanation but for you I'll try. You are supposed to live your faith not simply sit in church on Sunday. If you live your faith when it comes down to helping others it should be a no brainer. Thus when it comes to the General Welfare clause if you live your faith like the bible teaches, than interpetting the General Welfare clause is easy.

 

[Ravi]

Thomas Jefferson was pretty clear on the subject:

The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

The welfare of the UNION. If the welfare of the union is threatened, Congress is empowered to do something about it.

 

[Jack Fate]

I share your concern. But not because I harbor any delusions that federal government funding of healthcare is somehow unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional. It became unconstitutional when I am forced to buy it.

I didn't say anything about the mandate, I specifically said 'federal government funding'...

I agree that the mandate makes it unconstitutional.

But if it were replaced by a public option, it wouldn't be.

Be careful what you wish for.

It is going to go away. We can't afford it. Obama is finished, he just doesn't know it yet. The left was clobbered in November. This is not over until it's over.

 

[manifold]

If I were a moderator, I would sticky this thread.

 

[Jack Fate]

This is comical. Everyone has a different opinion of what "general welfare" means, yet the majority of people, to include politicians, would have us believe they are occupying a pew at the local church on Sunday. I wonder how the Republicans who are against welfare justify their actions to their faith.

Most will sit and try to figure out what the constitution means by "General Welfare" yet give less than two shits what their bible says about general welfare.

Don't you believe in "separation of church and state"? Are you confused?

The "general welfare" clause has nothign to do with the needs of individuals. Welfare or "relief" is not what the "welfare clause: is about.

I didn't think it needed an explanation but for you I'll try. You are supposed to live your faith not simply sit in church on Sunday. If you live your faith when it comes down to helping others it should be a no brainer. Thus when it comes to the General Welfare clause if you live your faith like the bible teaches, than interpetting the General Welfare clause is easy.

You still sound confused. How can you explain the US Constitution by using church as an example? That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Wouldn't you agree?

Unless your argument is purely emotional and you are using your personal feelings about Christianity to somehow justify your opinion of the US Constitution. It still sounds confused.

 

[code1211]

from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?

I interpret this in accord with the 9th and the 10th amedments which were required prior to the ratification of the entire document.

The common defence does not allow the Feds to protect every individual any more than the General Welfare allows the Feds to be the endower of charity to the individuals living in the states. If this were the case, we would not have local police forces or county or state law enforcement offices. They would all be federal.

The very term, "General Welfare" literally confines it away from specific welfare. General does not and never has meant specific.

It wise in any interpretation of words written centuries ago to determine what those words meant when written. Please note that if the founders had meant to imply what you seem to assert, they would have used the word "charity" rather than welfare. Here is a decent analysis of that:

World Wide Words: Welfare

Originally welfare meant the state or condition of how well one was doing, of one’s happiness, good fortune or prosperity. Shakespeare has Queen Margaret say in Henry VI: “Take heed, my lord; the welfare of us all / Hangs on the cutting short that fraudful man”. And John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690): “Thus the being and welfare of a man’s children or friends, producing constant delight in him, he is said constantly to love them”.

This remained so until the beginning of this century, when changes in the relationship between individuals and the state caused an extended sense to appear of an organised effort to maintain the members of a community in a state of well-being, both physical and economic. One reason for this new usage was that older terms, particularly charity, had too many unacceptable overtones relating to recipients’ loss of self-respect and dignity in accepting help. So welfare was useful in expressing similar ideas but without this historical baggage of associations.



Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[xsited1]

During the Vietnam war, our gvt began spending more on our defense budget than on the 'general welfare' of our citizens.....our population became infuriated with this...all the tv shows were making skits and comments on it....even shows like Laugh In....it was a part of the whole fury against the war....

So President Johnson took measures to MASK the percentage of income taxes being spent on Vietnam....and he moved Social Security in to the gvt's overall budget, even though no income taxes went towards it....

By doing this, the percentage of what was being spent on defense, got reduced over night with SS in this budget as well....

HE screwed us over...

Social Security surplus monies are now being spent on our defense budget.

General Welfare spending WAS WHAT the income tax payers expected the majority of their tax monies to go to....NOT towards a defense budget/ or military industrial complex, from here to kingdom come!

MY MY how things have changed.....

It started going downhill long before that, Care.

 

[The T]

This is comical. Everyone has a different opinion of what "general welfare" means, yet the majority of people, to include politicians, would have us believe they are occupying a pew at the local church on Sunday. I wonder how the Republicans who are against welfare justify their actions to their faith.

Most will sit and try to figure out what the constitution means by "General Welfare" yet give less than two shits what their bible says about general welfare.

Don't you believe in "separation of church and state"? Are you confused?

The "general welfare" clause has nothign to do with the needs of individuals. Welfare or "relief" is not what the "welfare clause: is about.

Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power.

SOURCE

I will state further that it was an edict unto the Federal Government that they were empowered to protect Liberty of the individual in their exercise of Life, Liberty, persuit of happiness (property) by whatever means as they fought against a KING overseas to wrest such thinking and control unto the people.

What we see now is a total 180 where the individual is taxed, their liberty, property is seized as to embellish unto others. The General Welfare clause has been bastardized.

 

[code1211]

from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?

So your argument is that when the Founding Fathers signed what they thought was a document that strictly limited Federal Power and preserved individual freedoms and protected State rights, one of those enumerated powers was "oh, and the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants."

Very persuasive argument that is...

No, that's not my argument. That is what's known in the business as a strawman.

My argument is that the federal government's authority to provide for the 'general welfare' is bound by what 'we the people' determine is necessary and acceptable as long as it doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.

40 cents of every dollar spent by the Feds, an astonishing 60% of what is collected in taxes is burrowed. This means that the republic will soon be insolvent and our freedoms will be forfeit.

The expediture of any funds not posessed at this time under this circumstance is a threat to the individual liberty of every American.

 

[spectrumc01]

Don't you believe in "separation of church and state"? Are you confused?

The "general welfare" clause has nothign to do with the needs of individuals. Welfare or "relief" is not what the "welfare clause: is about.

I didn't think it needed an explanation but for you I'll try. You are supposed to live your faith not simply sit in church on Sunday. If you live your faith when it comes down to helping others it should be a no brainer. Thus when it comes to the General Welfare clause if you live your faith like the bible teaches, than interpetting the General Welfare clause is easy.

You still sound confused. How can you explain the US Constitution by using church as an example? That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Wouldn't you agree?

Unless your argument is purely emotional and you are using your personal feelings about Christianity to somehow justify your opinion of the US Constitution. It still sounds confused.

Lets take the health care bill, and assume that I'm a Republican church goer. I should be in favor of such a bill because it is for the "General Welfare of the people of the US" and it jives with what the bible teaches. Unemployment benefits extensions, does it fit the general welfare clause, yes and you can reconcile it with the bible as well.

What I'm saying is... that if all these "compassionate conservatives", and "Family Values" politicians actually believe in what they say they do. When it comes down to what actually fits in the "General Welfare" clause, it should be a no brainer.

 

[The T]

During the Vietnam war, our gvt began spending more on our defense budget than on the 'general welfare' of our citizens.....our population became infuriated with this...all the tv shows were making skits and comments on it....even shows like Laugh In....it was a part of the whole fury against the war....

So President Johnson took measures to MASK the percentage of income taxes being spent on Vietnam....and he moved Social Security in to the gvt's overall budget, even though no income taxes went towards it....

By doing this, the percentage of what was being spent on defense, got reduced over night with SS in this budget as well....

HE screwed us over...

Social Security surplus monies are now being spent on our defense budget.

General Welfare spending WAS WHAT the income tax payers expected the majority of their tax monies to go to....NOT towards a defense budget/ or military industrial complex, from here to kingdom come!

MY MY how things have changed.....

It started going downhill long before that, Care.

Long before...it started to change courtesy of the Socialist/Progressives of the Early 1900's...Woodrow Wilson to be precise...

 

[WillowTree]

from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?

So your argument is that when the Founding Fathers signed what they thought was a document that strictly limited Federal Power and preserved individual freedoms and protected State rights, one of those enumerated powers was "oh, and the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants."

Very persuasive argument that is...

No, that's not my argument. That is what's known in the business as a strawman.

My argument is that the federal government's authority to provide for the 'general welfare' is bound by what 'we the people' determine is necessary and acceptable as long as it doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.

Take it in context,, it works if you don't have a Progressive tax system. with that you do infringe on people's liberty.

 

[The T]

So your argument is that when the Founding Fathers signed what they thought was a document that strictly limited Federal Power and preserved individual freedoms and protected State rights, one of those enumerated powers was "oh, and the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants."

Very persuasive argument that is...

No, that's not my argument. That is what's known in the business as a strawman.

My argument is that the federal government's authority to provide for the 'general welfare' is bound by what 'we the people' determine is necessary and acceptable as long as it doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.

Take it in context,, it works if you don't have a Progressive tax system. with that you do infringe on people's liberty.

And discourage them from commerce that could bolster the economy.

 

[code1211]

I didn't think it needed an explanation but for you I'll try. You are supposed to live your faith not simply sit in church on Sunday. If you live your faith when it comes down to helping others it should be a no brainer. Thus when it comes to the General Welfare clause if you live your faith like the bible teaches, than interpetting the General Welfare clause is easy.

You still sound confused. How can you explain the US Constitution by using church as an example? That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Wouldn't you agree?

Unless your argument is purely emotional and you are using your personal feelings about Christianity to somehow justify your opinion of the US Constitution. It still sounds confused.

Lets take the health care bill, and assume that I'm a Republican church goer. I should be in favor of such a bill because it is for the "General Welfare of the people of the US" and it jives with what the bible teaches. Unemployment benefits extensions, does it fit the general welfare clause, yes and you can reconcile it with the bible as well.

What I'm saying is... that if all these "compassionate conservatives", and "Family Values" politicians actually believe in what they say they do. When it comes down to what actually fits in the "General Welfare" clause, it should be a no brainer.

You obviously have a complete understanding of both the Constitution and the Bible.

Please quote those sections from these icons that assert the justification of stealing from others to provide the well being of those that you would like to support.

I suspect that you have confused Robin Hood with Jesus.

 

[The T]

I didn't think it needed an explanation but for you I'll try. You are supposed to live your faith not simply sit in church on Sunday. If you live your faith when it comes down to helping others it should be a no brainer. Thus when it comes to the General Welfare clause if you live your faith like the bible teaches, than interpetting the General Welfare clause is easy.

You still sound confused. How can you explain the US Constitution by using church as an example? That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Wouldn't you agree?

Unless your argument is purely emotional and you are using your personal feelings about Christianity to somehow justify your opinion of the US Constitution. It still sounds confused.

Lets take the health care bill, and assume that I'm a Republican church goer. I should be in favor of such a bill because it is for the "General Welfare of the people of the US" and it jives with what the bible teaches. Unemployment benefits extensions, does it fit the general welfare clause, yes and you can reconcile it with the bible as well.

What I'm saying is... that if all these "compassionate conservatives", and "Family Values" politicians actually believe in what they say they do. When it comes down to what actually fits in the "General Welfare" clause, it should be a no brainer.

I assume nothing. it is up to the individual to grant charity, and not for Gubmint to coerce it via excessive taxation against their will.

 

[Jack Fate]

I didn't think it needed an explanation but for you I'll try. You are supposed to live your faith not simply sit in church on Sunday. If you live your faith when it comes down to helping others it should be a no brainer. Thus when it comes to the General Welfare clause if you live your faith like the bible teaches, than interpetting the General Welfare clause is easy.

You still sound confused. How can you explain the US Constitution by using church as an example? That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Wouldn't you agree?

Unless your argument is purely emotional and you are using your personal feelings about Christianity to somehow justify your opinion of the US Constitution. It still sounds confused.

Lets take the health care bill, and assume that I'm a Republican church goer. I should be in favor of such a bill because it is for the "General Welfare of the people of the US" and it jives with what the bible teaches. Unemployment benefits extensions, does it fit the general welfare clause, yes and you can reconcile it with the bible as well.

What I'm saying is... that if all these "compassionate conservatives", and "Family Values" politicians actually believe in what they say they do. When it comes down to what actually fits in the "General Welfare" clause, it should be a no brainer.

You're still confused. This is not a republican church goer partisan argument. This is a constitutional argument. Your argument is that government should do what the church does and that republicans should somehow support government taking care of people. Your argument is purely driven by emotion and personal opinion, not the law.

 

[manifold]

Arguing how someone else 'should' interpret the general welfare clause based on how you think they 'should' practice their religion is beyond retarded and has no place in an honest discussion about constitutionality and what the federal government is empowered to do vis-a-vis providing for the general welfare.

 

[The T]

Arguing how someone else 'should' interpret the general welfare clause based on how you think they 'should' practice their religion is beyond retarded and has no place in an honest discussion about constitutionality and what the federal government is empowered to do vis-a-vis providing for the general welfare.

Give up. You lost the argument.

 

[manifold]

Arguing how someone else 'should' interpret the general welfare clause based on how you think they 'should' practice their religion is beyond retarded and has no place in an honest discussion about constitutionality and what the federal government is empowered to do vis-a-vis providing for the general welfare.

Give up. You lost the argument.

So you think religion has a place in a discussion of the general welfare clause huh?

Enjoy keeping company with spectrumc01.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple, really:
-The powers given to Congress in realtion to the common defense are laid out in the remiander of Article I Section 8.
-The powers given to Congress in relation to the general welfare are laid out on the remainder of Article I Section 8.

If the power to spend revenue on the common defense and the general welfare were, in and of itself, a grant of power to create legislation pursuant to same, there'd only br two clauses in the entire section - the first and the last. In short, the power granted by the clause in question was to raise revenue and to spend revenue; the power to create the mechanisim for that spending was given elsewhere.