What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

[BrokeLoser]

If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

We could eliminate the deficit entirely, and lower tax rates for EVERYONE, by simply banning the $1.4 trillion spent each year on tax expenditures.

We have an insane system whereby entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes.

We have a tax code which is the largest government behavior control program in the history of the world. We have a tax code which is used by the government to interfere in every single market on a MASSIVE scale.

How anyone claiming to be a "conservative" can defend this system is beyond me.

Off topic but....does that mean you’re behind EVERYBODY paying a flat tax?

 

[danielpalos]

Any time the commies can "interpret" the constitution to give government absolute power, they can't resist.

unlike the right wing.

nobody takes right wingers seriously about capitalism or economics.

 

[g5000]

If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

We could eliminate the deficit entirely, and lower tax rates for EVERYONE, by simply banning the $1.4 trillion spent each year on tax expenditures.

We have an insane system whereby entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes.

We have a tax code which is the largest government behavior control program in the history of the world. We have a tax code which is used by the government to interfere in every single market on a MASSIVE scale.

How anyone claiming to be a "conservative" can defend this system is beyond me.

Off topic but....does that mean you’re behind EVERYBODY paying a flat tax?

I support the Fair Tax, with no exemptions. Taxes on consumption are superior to taxes on production.

What you don't get is that it doesn't matter which tax structure we have if tax expenditures are allowed to exist. You have been misled into believing the flat INCOME tax has some magical quality which will prevent corruptible loopholes and carve-outs for special interests.

 

[g5000]

If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

We could eliminate the deficit entirely, and lower tax rates for EVERYONE, by simply banning the $1.4 trillion spent each year on tax expenditures.

We have an insane system whereby entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes.

We have a tax code which is the largest government behavior control program in the history of the world. We have a tax code which is used by the government to interfere in every single market on a MASSIVE scale.

How anyone claiming to be a "conservative" can defend this system is beyond me.

Off topic but....does that mean you’re behind EVERYBODY paying a flat tax?

On topic, Founder Thomas Jefferson, the great conservative hero, preferred a progressive tax system. And he wanted people below a certain income to be exempt from taxation.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

To James Madison Fontainebleau Oct. 28 1785; The Letters of Thomas Jefferson

 

[Thinker101]

Your theory self destructs quickly though because Mexifornia is home to only 12% of the national population and 33% of the nations welfare filth. In case you didn’t know, Mexifornia is a blue state that operates solely on progressive ideals. Weird huh?

a simple cost of living issue that is being addressed through the minimum wage.

You do realize that one requirement for minimum wage is having a job?

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

 

[Penelope]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Certainty they were not concerned about women, blacks, or the poor.

 

[g5000]

The problem with people who claim to know what our Founders wanted by way of welfare and taxation is that they don't have any clue what our Founders were all about. They merely parrot what their propagandists have told them, and have never actually read the words and letters of our Founders for themselves.

I have yet to meet a pseudocon who thinks for themselves. If they did, they would not be pseudocons.

As I have just shown, Thomas Paine was practically a communist, while Thomas Jefferson was at the very least a progressive. Quite a few of our Founders had a pet peeve about ruling classes and wealth gaps. They spent a lot of time thinking and talking about how to reduce income inequalities. This makes sense when you consider they had just rebelled against an aristocracy.

For them, equality was economic as much as it was about personal liberties.

 

[BrokeLoser]

If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

We could eliminate the deficit entirely, and lower tax rates for EVERYONE, by simply banning the $1.4 trillion spent each year on tax expenditures.

We have an insane system whereby entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes.

We have a tax code which is the largest government behavior control program in the history of the world. We have a tax code which is used by the government to interfere in every single market on a MASSIVE scale.

How anyone claiming to be a "conservative" can defend this system is beyond me.

Off topic but....does that mean you’re behind EVERYBODY paying a flat tax?

On topic, Founder Thomas Jefferson, the great conservative hero, preferred a progressive tax system. And he wanted people below a certain income to be exempt from taxation.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

To James Madison Fontainebleau Oct. 28 1785; The Letters of Thomas Jefferson

Still off topic as the topic is general welfare...the current tax system is in fact progressive...just making sure you know that?

 

[danielpalos]

a simple cost of living issue that is being addressed through the minimum wage.

You do realize that one requirement for minimum wage is having a job?

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

Our general welfare clause is general enough to address Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment simply for the sake of commerce and the general prosperity.

 

[g5000]

Thomas Jefferson on wealth inequality and the need for governments to work to redistribute wealth more evenly:


As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Your first mistake is in assuming our Founders were monolithic in their beliefs.

If you want to see one Founder's idea of what "the general welfare" meant to him, read Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine.

A sampling:

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Thomas Paine Agrarian Justice -- Part 2 of 3

A stipend paid by the government to everyone over the age of 21. An additional stipend after the age of 50.

There is your welfare state and social security, right there. Courtesy of Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense.

Thomas Paine was not a signatory to the Constitution. In fact, he later became a French citizen.

Though some of his philosophy inspired American foundational thinking, he can in no way be considered a Founding Father.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

We could eliminate the deficit entirely, and lower tax rates for EVERYONE, by simply banning the $1.4 trillion spent each year on tax expenditures.

We have an insane system whereby entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes.

We have a tax code which is the largest government behavior control program in the history of the world. We have a tax code which is used by the government to interfere in every single market on a MASSIVE scale.

How anyone claiming to be a "conservative" can defend this system is beyond me.

Off topic but....does that mean you’re behind EVERYBODY paying a flat tax?

On topic, Founder Thomas Jefferson, the great conservative hero, preferred a progressive tax system. And he wanted people below a certain income to be exempt from taxation.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

To James Madison Fontainebleau Oct. 28 1785; The Letters of Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was not advocating. He starts the paragraph, "Another means of silently..."

 

[NightFox]

Any time the commies can "interpret" the constitution to give government absolute power, they can't resist.

The phrase "General Welfare" appears in the PREAMBLE, it's just an introduction and according to SCOTUS doesn't carry the force of law so there is no "interpretation" required.

It simply sets forth what the founders were hoping to accomplish IN the Constitution, the actual contents of the Constitution are what carry the force of law.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem with people who claim to know what our Founders wanted by way of welfare and taxation is that they don't have any clue what our Founders were all about. They merely parrot what their propagandists have told them, and have never actually read the words and letters of our Founders for themselves.

I have yet to meet a pseudocon who thinks for themselves. If they did, they would not be pseudocons.

As I have just shown, Thomas Paine was practically a communist, while Thomas Jefferson was at the very least a progressive. Quite a few of our Founders had a pet peeve about ruling classes and wealth gaps. They spent a lot of time thinking and talking about how to reduce income inequalities. This makes sense when you consider they had just rebelled against an aristocracy.

For them, equality was economic as much as it was about personal liberties.

we have the federal doctrine, in writing.

 

[hunarcy]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

General Welfare refers to promoting the common good or putting the interests of everyone over the benefits of a select group or a few people.

 

[danielpalos]

Any time the commies can "interpret" the constitution to give government absolute power, they can't resist.

The phrase "General Welfare" appears in the PREAMBLE, it's just an introduction and according to SCOTUS doesn't carry the force of law so there is no "interpretation" required.

It simply sets forth what the founders were hoping to accomplish IN the Constitution, the actual contents of the Constitution are what carry the force of law.

the preamble is our "mission statement".

 

[g5000]

The problem with people who claim to know what our Founders wanted by way of welfare and taxation is that they don't have any clue what our Founders were all about. They merely parrot what their propagandists have told them, and have never actually read the words and letters of our Founders for themselves.

I have yet to meet a pseudocon who thinks for themselves. If they did, they would not be pseudocons.

As I have just shown, Thomas Paine was practically a communist, while Thomas Jefferson was at the very least a progressive. Quite a few of our Founders had a pet peeve about ruling classes and wealth gaps. They spent a lot of time thinking and talking about how to reduce income inequalities. This makes sense when you consider they had just rebelled against an aristocracy.

For them, equality was economic as much as it was about personal liberties.

we have the federal doctrine, in writing.

And you clearly don't understand it.

 

[Polishprince]

a simple cost of living issue that is being addressed through the minimum wage.

You do realize that one requirement for minimum wage is having a job?

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

 

[g5000]

If you look at the 2019 Budget (below), especially the Welfare and Medicaid line items, you see that the $900b deficit can be offset by reducing welfare and medicaid as well as other reductions, such as in Defense. While the economy is at its highest level, and at full employment, with jobs all over, we should really be sure that the recipients of welfare and medicaid are truly deserving, and are US citizens. IMHO the dems give out freebies too easily thereby ensuring that the dependency on their democrat plantations is assured. I'm hoping that Trump makes sure that there are more people pulling the wagon than riding in it.

2019 Federal Budget $4.04T

Mandatory spending $2.74T
Social Security $1,050b
Medicare $625b
Medicaid $412b
Welfare $462b
Interest on the Debt $363b

Discretionary $1.3T
Defense $893.0
HHS $70.0
Education $59.9
VA $83.1
Homeland $52.7
Energy Dept $29.2
NNSA $15.1
HUD $29.2
State Dept $40.3
NASA $19.0
All Other Agencies $133.1

We could eliminate the deficit entirely, and lower tax rates for EVERYONE, by simply banning the $1.4 trillion spent each year on tax expenditures.

We have an insane system whereby entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes.

We have a tax code which is the largest government behavior control program in the history of the world. We have a tax code which is used by the government to interfere in every single market on a MASSIVE scale.

How anyone claiming to be a "conservative" can defend this system is beyond me.

Off topic but....does that mean you’re behind EVERYBODY paying a flat tax?

On topic, Founder Thomas Jefferson, the great conservative hero, preferred a progressive tax system. And he wanted people below a certain income to be exempt from taxation.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

To James Madison Fontainebleau Oct. 28 1785; The Letters of Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was not advocating. He starts the paragraph, "Another means of silently..."

Yes, he most certainly is advocating. The first means he mentions is the elimination of primogeniture.

Read the whole letter. Jefferson is borderline commie.

 

[danielpalos]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

General Welfare refers to promoting the common good or putting the interests of everyone over the benefits of a select group or a few people.

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner provides market based metrics.