Want to cut taxes??

[NYcarbineer]

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War

You lie.

The Iraq War will cost us more than $3 trillion. The measures in the stimulus bill are nominally worth $787 billion.

Yes, and 300 billion of that 787 billion figure that is so often cited represents the COST OF TAX CUTS in the bill owing to LOST REVENUE.

So, if you believe that 787 billion was the cost of the stimulus bill then you have to believe that tax cuts are a COST, and an addition to the DEFICIT.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am for cutting everything on the list, but lets take out military spending first. A complete non-necessity item. Or you might like my idea to take the ability to fund legislation away from Congress & the President, and eliminate the IRS and federal taxes all together.

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution so good luck with eliminating that.

The idea of eliminating the IRS is a great idea but just remember that the last government person to move against large government entities was assassinated for it. No politician has the balls to do it and until the people march on DC with guns, pitchforks and torches it aint gonna' happen.

'Overspend on defense' is not in the Constitution, so your argument is, as always, worthless.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

"the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

The well established rule of construction in 1788 was that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

In 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Oh... and also try and understand the enumerated powers (notice there was no mention of indefinite nor limitless power in the Constitution)

Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union.

--George Mason at the Virginia Convention of 1788 that ratified the U. S. Constitution​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

General Welfare is not the same thing as Dollar General.

n 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

 

[saveliberty]

Oh... and also try and understand the enumerated powers (notice there was no mention of indefinite nor limitless power in the Constitution)

Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union.

--George Mason at the Virginia Convention of 1788 that ratified the U. S. Constitution​

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Oh... and also try and understand the enumerated powers (notice there was no mention of indefinite nor limitless power in the Constitution)

Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union.

--George Mason at the Virginia Convention of 1788 that ratified the U. S. Constitution​

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

All I know is that if we apply the well established common law rules of construction to the U. S. Constitution, the men who made the Constitution wanted Congress to have the power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals" of the United States.

 

[saveliberty]

Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union.

--George Mason at the Virginia Convention of 1788 that ratified the U. S. Constitution​

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

All I know is that if we apply the well established common law rules of construction to the U. S. Constitution, the men who made the Constitution wanted Congress to have the power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals" of the United States.

General welfare= Keep the Indians from raiding the frontier areas. The founders would have never been so ignorant to believe they could provide happiness for anyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't want to cut taxes.

i want everyone to pay their proportional fair share. Just think of the revenue that would bring in.

 

[saveliberty]

Tax EVERYBODY @ 20%, fairness will creep into the system overnight. So will a tax cut.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tax EVERYBODY @ 20%, fairness will creep into the system overnight. So will a tax cut.

Getting rid of all deductions and exemptions would allow a lower flat rate i would think.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh... and also try and understand the enumerated powers (notice there was no mention of indefinite nor limitless power in the Constitution)

Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union.

--George Mason at the Virginia Convention of 1788 that ratified the U. S. Constitution​

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

Christian charity is well and good but depends too much on a strong economy. Once the economy sours, Christians start looking at their own "general welfare" and the poor are left with nothing

 

[saveliberty]

Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union.

--George Mason at the Virginia Convention of 1788 that ratified the U. S. Constitution​

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

Christian charity is well and good but depends too much on a strong economy. Once the economy sours, Christians start looking at their own "general welfare" and the poor are left with nothing

Still won't change the meaning to what you want one little bit.

 

[DiamondDave]

"the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

The well established rule of construction in 1788 was that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

In 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

Except that the term "general welfare" together has an entirely different meaning... I could take the term "general" to mean a ranking military officer as well, when taken out of context..

You fucking imbecile... and let alone that you and your ignorant leftist ilk keep forgetting the last few words of the sentence within the constitution.... where the subject is already defined as "THE UNITED STATES"... not the individuals within the united states

Try and look also, as suggested before, at the ENUMERATED powers granted to the federal government... notice it did not say unlimited powers

 

[rightwinger]

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

Christian charity is well and good but depends too much on a strong economy. Once the economy sours, Christians start looking at their own "general welfare" and the poor are left with nothing

Still won't change the meaning to what you want one little bit.

Let them starve....how "Christian"

 

[saveliberty]

Christian charity is well and good but depends too much on a strong economy. Once the economy sours, Christians start looking at their own "general welfare" and the poor are left with nothing

Still won't change the meaning to what you want one little bit.

Let them starve....how "Christian"

Care to connect the dots from what I said to what you think it meant? It is a rare occurence when Christians are not charitable. We have a feed the poor, support a mission to Russia, fund Haiti relief, autism program and on and on. One little church in one little city.

 

[DiamondDave]

Christian charity is well and good but depends too much on a strong economy. Once the economy sours, Christians start looking at their own "general welfare" and the poor are left with nothing

Still won't change the meaning to what you want one little bit.

Let them starve....how "Christian"

Let them work... how un-democrat

 

[rightwinger]

Still won't change the meaning to what you want one little bit.

Let them starve....how "Christian"

Let them work... how un-democrat

Sure....crash the economy with wild speculation

Fire your workforce

Then tell them to "Get a job you lazy bum"

 

[DiamondDave]

Let them starve....how "Christian"

Let them work... how un-democrat

Sure....crash the economy with wild speculation

Fire your workforce

Then tell them to "Get a job you lazy bum"

Funny... it's the employer's or business owner's responsibility for you to work and provide for your family???!!!!?? Oh wait, it's society's or the government's responsibility to find you a job and provide for your family???!!!??? Oh wait, it's the government's responsibility to take from those who do earn and work and redistribute it???!!!???

You have some warped ideals there wrongwinger...

I simply state it is a personal responsibility to take care of you, your family, and your wants and needs... and that with that freedom you have given from the constitution in this country, you take also the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed... and in our freedoms, I feel it is a great thing to do to VOLUNTARILY give to charities and causes that speak to you in some way.... but in no way should we be forced to take care of the personal responsibilities of others, no matter how good it makes a person like you feel generous while using the monies of others

 

[Oddball]

"the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

The well established rule of construction in 1788 was that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

In 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

Total BS.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

~James Madison, principal author of the Constitution - Federalist

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

~Thomas Jefferson, author DoI - Anti-federalist

Note that for all their disagreements, the two camps both agreed that the powers of the feds were both enumerated and limited.