The 'General Welfare' thread

[spectrumc01]

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.

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.

When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.

 

[The T]

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.

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.

When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.

Federalist 41

 

[The T]

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.

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.

When congress comes up with a bill, such as the new health care bill, it must be voted on for approval, and funding must be aquired. Anyone who believes in the bible and lives their faith would vote yes for this bill (church going Republicans/Democrats). When it comes to the funding part they should do everything in their power to get the funding because Public health care is a good thing for the General welfare of the people and the country. If that means laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the General Welfare of the United States, then that is what must be done. Some like to view it as wealth redistribution instead of helping the down trodden because it gets them off the hook with their faith (church going Republicans/Democrats). This has nothing to do with seperation of church and state it has to do with the hypocracy that says "I sit in church and live my faith, but in actuality I live like the Pharasies using technical loopholes to cheat my faith". They talk about their faith and give good lip service but when it comes time to apply it, their greed and partisanship comes to the fore front. They can't tell me of moral obligations to help the Libyans, yet watch our people go without health care.

*YOU* Remain ignorant at OUR Expense.

 

[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.

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

Enjoy keeping company with spectrumc01.

Did *I* address religion? *Don't think So*, nor did I implicitly imply it.

*NEXT*

 

[Trajan]

I have said this before here before and will so state again; in close consultations via seance have I spoken with the our founding dads; we are all for helping the helpless, but we are not into helping the clueless.


to draw a connection from, the general welfare clause to a mechanism that awards the clueless, is absurd.

Slice it any way you like.

 

[manifold]

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.

Did *I* address religion? *Don't think So*, nor did I implicitly imply it.

*NEXT*

I'll let the phrase 'implicitly imply' slide for the time being.

However, you quoted and responded to my post addressing religion. That means you most certainly did implictly address it. If you're too stupid to realize that then the terrorists have already won.

 

[JBeukema]

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.....

'defense'? How were grenada, guatamala, supporting Pinochet, Iraq, or the Monroe Doctrine defense?

 

[The T]

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

Enjoy keeping company with spectrumc01.

Did *I* address religion? *Don't think So*, nor did I implicitly imply it.

*NEXT*

I'll let the phrase 'implicitly imply' slide for the time being.

However, you quoted and responded to my post addressing relgion. That means you most certainly did implictly address it. If you're too stupid to realize that then the terrorists have already won.

And did I make a comment toward it.

The magic *8 BALL* says ALL SIGNS POINT TO NO.

*NEXT*

 

[manifold]

Did *I* address religion? *Don't think So*, nor did I implicitly imply it.

*NEXT*

I'll let the phrase 'implicitly imply' slide for the time being.

However, you quoted and responded to my post addressing relgion. That means you most certainly did implictly address it. If you're too stupid to realize that then the terrorists have already won.

And did I make a comment toward it.

The magic *8 BALL* says ALL SIGNS POINT TO NO.

*NEXT*

Yes, you commented that I was wrong.

And since my post you quoted was about how religion has no place in this discussion, it's quite reasonable to conclude you think it does. That's how communication works dumbass.

But by all means, keep back-pedalling.

 

[JBeukema]

If I were a moderator,

I don't think you're Gunny's type

Besides, Del would get jealous

 

[kaz]

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.

You're the first person I've seen on this site use the term "strawman" correctly in a sentence. I give you a round of applause for that:

Though I don't agree it was a strawman because I see your clarification as a distinction without a difference. How can the courts possibly apply your clarified standard? They are not protecting individual liberties at all. Give me any example of anything the government could do that couldn't be justified under "General Welfare." Your stating they need to protect our individual liberties, when they don't, isn't a standard that means anything to someone who isn't concerned with our individual liberties, and none are being protected. I don't concede it was a strawman unless you can make your standard make any sense that isn't just anything goes.

 

[The T]

I'll let the phrase 'implicitly imply' slide for the time being.

However, you quoted and responded to my post addressing relgion. That means you most certainly did implictly address it. If you're too stupid to realize that then the terrorists have already won.

And did I make a comment toward it.

The magic *8 BALL* says ALL SIGNS POINT TO NO.

*NEXT*

Yes, you commented that I was wrong.

And since my post you quoted was about how religion has no place in this discussion, it's quite reasonable to conclude you think it does. That's how communication works dumbass.

But by all means, keep back-pedalling.

You think wrong since I decided NOT to comment on it. Any simpleton would understand such an omission...except YOU.

 

[kaz]

I find it more than just a little bit ironic that people who claim to be Jeffersonian supporters of state rights and a small central government cite the Federalist papers, written mostly be Hamilton, the FF's most ardent advocate of a strong central government, to support their alleged Jeffersonion viewpoint.

What you say is true by the standard of the day. But by the standards of today Hamilton would vomit at the infringements of State rights. So I don't agree with your argument that it's not proper to quote him. Actually it's a stronger argument. Someone who believed in Central government compared to others when it was written would oppose what's being done now to circumvent State rights.

 

[manifold]

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.

You're the first person I've seen on this site use the term "strawman" correctly in a sentence. I give you a round of applause for that:

Though I don't agree it was a strawman because I see your clarification as a distinction without a difference. How can the courts possibly apply your clarified standard? They are not protecting individual liberties at all. Give me any example of anything the government could do that couldn't be justified under "General Welfare." Your stating they need to protect our individual liberties, when they don't, isn't a standard that means anything to someone who isn't concerned with our individual liberties, and none are being protected. I don't concede it was a strawman unless you can make your standard make any sense that isn't just anything goes.

But for better or worse it really is just anything goes when it comes to taxing and spending as long as it has the support of 'we the people'. At least until the SCOTUS rules, even just once, that a particular general welfare program is unconstitutional. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[The T]

I find it more than just a little bit ironic that people who claim to be Jeffersonian supporters of state rights and a small central government cite the Federalist papers, written mostly be Hamilton, the FF's most ardent advocate of a strong central government, to support their alleged Jeffersonion viewpoint.

What you say is true by the standard of the day. But by the standards of today Hamilton would vomit at the infringements of State rights. So I don't agree with your argument that it's not proper to quote him. Actually it's a stronger argument. Someone who believed in Central government compared to others when it was written would oppose what's being done now to circumvent State rights.

Yep. Truth.

 

[The T]

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.

You're the first person I've seen on this site use the term "strawman" correctly in a sentence. I give you a round of applause for that:

Though I don't agree it was a strawman because I see your clarification as a distinction without a difference. How can the courts possibly apply your clarified standard? They are not protecting individual liberties at all. Give me any example of anything the government could do that couldn't be justified under "General Welfare." Your stating they need to protect our individual liberties, when they don't, isn't a standard that means anything to someone who isn't concerned with our individual liberties, and none are being protected. I don't concede it was a strawman unless you can make your standard make any sense that isn't just anything goes.

But for better or worse it really is just anything goes when it comes to taxing and spending as long as it has the support of 'we the people'. At least until the SCOTUS rules, even just once, that a particular general welfare program is unconstitutional. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And since when does the SCOTUS legislate such things?

 

[manifold]

And did I make a comment toward it.

The magic *8 BALL* says ALL SIGNS POINT TO NO.

*NEXT*

Yes, you commented that I was wrong.

And since my post you quoted was about how religion has no place in this discussion, it's quite reasonable to conclude you think it does. That's how communication works dumbass.

But by all means, keep back-pedalling.

You think wrong since I decided NOT to comment on it. Any simpleton would understand such an omission...except YOU.

Backpedal fail.

 

[manifold]

You're the first person I've seen on this site use the term "strawman" correctly in a sentence. I give you a round of applause for that:

Though I don't agree it was a strawman because I see your clarification as a distinction without a difference. How can the courts possibly apply your clarified standard? They are not protecting individual liberties at all. Give me any example of anything the government could do that couldn't be justified under "General Welfare." Your stating they need to protect our individual liberties, when they don't, isn't a standard that means anything to someone who isn't concerned with our individual liberties, and none are being protected. I don't concede it was a strawman unless you can make your standard make any sense that isn't just anything goes.

But for better or worse it really is just anything goes when it comes to taxing and spending as long as it has the support of 'we the people'. At least until the SCOTUS rules, even just once, that a particular general welfare program is unconstitutional. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And since when does the SCOTUS legislate such things?

It's not a matter of legislation.

But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.

 

[The T]

But for better or worse it really is just anything goes when it comes to taxing and spending as long as it has the support of 'we the people'. At least until the SCOTUS rules, even just once, that a particular general welfare program is unconstitutional. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And since when does the SCOTUS legislate such things?

It's not a matter of legislation.

But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.

And can still be challanged via Congressional Action. They are NEVER the final say.

 

[The T]

Yes, you commented that I was wrong.

And since my post you quoted was about how religion has no place in this discussion, it's quite reasonable to conclude you think it does. That's how communication works dumbass.

But by all means, keep back-pedalling.

You think wrong since I decided NOT to comment on it. Any simpleton would understand such an omission...except YOU.

Backpedal fail.

No backpedeling at all. I didn't comment on it and that's ALL there was to it. Sorry if I violate the rules of yer game.