What to cut: The Federal Budget

[Paulie]

I think it's high time that an amendment is created outlining the EXACT specifics of what is covered under "general welfare". And "regulating commerce" for that matter.

Everyone comes to an agreement on it, and it's set in stone. Whatever isn't listed, is not authorized.

Both sides will have to give a little, but in the end it will save a ton of money because there is obviously way too much money being spent in the name of that vague ass phrase.

 

[Charles_Main]

There was not fiscal discipline... #1

of course there was. The budget deficit declined each year and Clinton focused on budget balance over his social agenda from the day he took office.

Care to look at interest rates comparatively?

Sure. what comparison would you like to use?

And show causation of taxation being the source of your alleged improvement...

It's a concept taught in one of the very first sessions of any econ class.

That's funny what I remember is Republicans RUNNING on balancing the budget. Winning, and then having to fight Clinton to enact it.

Revise history much?

 

[Charles_Main]

I think it's high time that an amendment is created outlining the EXACT specifics of what is covered under "general welfare". And "regulating commerce" for that matter.

Everyone comes to an agreement on it, and it's set in stone. Whatever isn't listed, is not authorized.

Both sides will have to give a little, but in the end it will save a ton of money because there is obviously way too much money being spent in the name of that vague ass phrase.

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

 

[Paulie]

Because "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" is a mission statement, not a directive. That entire sentence was explaining the purpose and aim of Congress, before they then listed exactly how Congress was supposed to achieve it.

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

Read the sentence. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc., and then it says WHY Congress can do that: to pay the nation's debts and to provide for the nation's defense and welfare (defined as well-being, not checks to poor people). THEN the rest of the section lays out HOW Congress is going to provide for defense and well-being nationally. So yeah, there are powers specifically mentioned in that first sentence, but they are still part of the mission statement of Congress. And "common Defence and general Welfare" are purely explanatory, rather than directive.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

This is your opinion, and nothing more.

It is worded way too vaguely to make any specific assumptions of what you THINK the authors were trying to say.

They never said anywhere that general welfare is "defined" as anything. You're adding that one on your own to defend your opinion.

It's time for an amendment.

 

[8537]

That's funny what I remember is Republicans RUNNING on balancing the budget. Winning, and then having to fight Clinton to enact it.

Revise history much?

of course they ran on balancing the budget! Hell, Reagan ran on balancing the budget. It's the cornerstone of every Republican campaign. They never deliver, of course, but they run on it.

balancing the budget started long before Republicans ran on it in 1994 and took office in 1995. The deficit was reduced in the years prior thanks to a growing economy, a tax increase and smart fiscal policy.

The tax increase, the growing economy and smart fiscal policy continued after 1995. When Republicans finally got control of the executive branch to match their legislative power, government spending spiked and deficits immediately returned as we funded a pharmaceutical company subsidy, a near doubling of farm subsidies and two wars.

 

[Paulie]

I think it's high time that an amendment is created outlining the EXACT specifics of what is covered under "general welfare". And "regulating commerce" for that matter.

Everyone comes to an agreement on it, and it's set in stone. Whatever isn't listed, is not authorized.

Both sides will have to give a little, but in the end it will save a ton of money because there is obviously way too much money being spent in the name of that vague ass phrase.

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

This still assumes that when they said "general welfare" they were specifically talking about only those things mentioned next. That is simply an interpretation of what is written, and nothing more.

And general welfare is not just mentioned in the preamble. This was already covered.

Had they not said something as vague as "general welfare", I would agree, because then we only have those very specific things mentioned in section 8 to go on.

They mentioned general welfare in the most vague way possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt. And they put "general welfare" in a sentence dealing with taxation. This tells me taxation is only to be used for the purposes of promoting the general welfare subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs.
And none of them mentions Education.

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

No, we don't, because they're archaic in the modern world. At the time the Constitution was written, however, they were common practices, and part of conducting national defense. And as such, it was in everyone's best interest to enumerate exactly who did and didn't have the power to do it officially.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

You don't understand why uniform laws - which is rather more the point of that power - are in the nation's best interest? Or why having a judicial system is?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

This is where people get messed up. "General welfare" means "the well-being of the nation as a whole", not the individual citizens.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Which is likely why the Founding Fathers didn't include it in the Constitution.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

But "general welfare" still isn't a directive. The grammar of it is quite clear. It's explanatory.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I am definitely on board with the idea of cutting out all agricultural and rural subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

That doesn't exactly fly right. The Constitution has always had implied powers where it makes sense. Finding justification for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc requires reading just as tenous as a lot of the arguments for Social Security, Medicare, etc. After all, the Constitution only specifically mentions the Army and Navy when it comes to national defense, and militias at the State level. So where do independent intelligence gathering agencies and Federal law enforcement enter the picture?

A few extremely famous. For example: Who had the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase? That was a minor Constitutional crisis.

Not to mention the Constitution as originally written doesn't lay out the chain of succession, doesn't lay out a single role for the Judicial, doesn't lay out a method for stopping Congress from passing laws that are unconstitutional, doesn't address a method to determine a law's constitutionality, nor even provide for resolving when two states disagree on whether a Federal law is constitutional.

Its vague, and as such implied powers have been there from almost the start.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

Read the sentence. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc., and then it says WHY Congress can do that: to pay the nation's debts and to provide for the nation's defense and welfare (defined as well-being, not checks to poor people). THEN the rest of the section lays out HOW Congress is going to provide for defense and well-being nationally. So yeah, there are powers specifically mentioned in that first sentence, but they are still part of the mission statement of Congress. And "common Defence and general Welfare" are purely explanatory, rather than directive.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

This is your opinion, and nothing more.

No, Paulie, it isn't. It's English. Words mean things. The way they're combined means things. The context means things. The entire point of written language is to convey meanings. Otherwise, all you're doing is making interesting ink squiggles on the lambskin. It is, believe it or not, entirely possible to look at those little ink squiggles and divine the intent of the guys making them.

It is worded way too vaguely to make any specific assumptions of what you THINK the authors were trying to say.

It's not vague at all. Believe it or not, they taught this in high school English composition. It's called "how to write a paragraph".

They never said anywhere that general welfare is "defined" as anything. You're adding that one on your own to defend your opinion.

The didn't HAVE to state anywhere how it's defined. It's a Constitution, not a dictionary. The word already HAD a definition, which is why they used it to denote the concept they were talking about.

Merriam-Webster provides us with two definitions for the word "welfare":

: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

Insofar as the second definition DIDN'T EXIST in this country - or in any country that I am aware of - at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it doesn't take any major deductive reasoning to glean that the meaning of the word that the Founding Fathers had in mind must have been the only one there was then.

It's time for an amendment.

It's time for people to learn to speak their mother tongue effectively and stop pretending that words are just meaningless sounds/squiggles.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am definitely on board with the idea of cutting out all agricultural and rural subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

 

[loosecannon]

I am gonna be burning copies of the Federal Budget at my FL Parish on the anniversary of 10/29.

I hope that doesn't piss anybody off!

 

[Paulie]

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

That doesn't exactly fly right. The Constitution has always had implied powers where it makes sense. Finding justification for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc requires reading just as tenous as a lot of the arguments for Social Security, Medicare, etc. After all, the Constitution only specifically mentions the Army and Navy when it comes to national defense, and militias at the State level. So where do independent intelligence gathering agencies and Federal law enforcement enter the picture?

A few extremely famous. For example: Who had the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase? That was a minor Constitutional crisis.

Not to mention the Constitution as originally written doesn't lay out the chain of succession, doesn't lay out a single role for the Judicial, doesn't lay out a method for stopping Congress from passing laws that are unconstitutional, doesn't address a method to determine a law's constitutionality, nor even provide for resolving when two states disagree on whether a Federal law is constitutional.

Its vague, and as such implied powers have been there from almost the start.

Exactly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am definitely on board with the idea of cutting out all agricultural and rural subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

I have no reason to believe that cutting farm subsidies is going to make agriculture in the United States unprofitable. I DO have reason to believe that farm and rural subsidies are a giant rip-off of the American taxpayer and harmful to the economy.

Agricultural Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government

As for foreign oil dependence, don't even get me started on needed reform at the Department of Energy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am definitely on board with the idea of cutting out all agricultural and rural subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

It is a fact that most of the subsidies are directed at the largest producers. Which isn't surprising, because they're the ones who can afford to lobby Congressmembers the hardest.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I am definitely on board with the idea of cutting out all agricultural and rural subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

I don't debate that farm subsidies programs have overwhelmingly helped large corporations over small farms. The large coroporations organize towards subsidies and have the resources to do it.

The idea we could run out of food or that we could find ourselves cut off from overseas food suplies isn't that absurd. After all, OPEC cut us off from oil in the 70's despite enormous lost revenues. In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl. The figures on malnutrition to outright starvation in the lowest income levels now are astounding.

Feeding the world population is a problem that is growing rapidly. We'll also have to face that at some very future point. If we fail to protect American agriculture, we'll have a lot less flexibility to handle that situation when it comes.

I agree subsidies might not be the best way to do it, but we do need to find some tool that can work rather than just letting what happens happen.

 

[Paulie]

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

That doesn't exactly fly right. The Constitution has always had implied powers where it makes sense. Finding justification for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc requires reading just as tenous as a lot of the arguments for Social Security, Medicare, etc. After all, the Constitution only specifically mentions the Army and Navy when it comes to national defense, and militias at the State level. So where do independent intelligence gathering agencies and Federal law enforcement enter the picture?

A few extremely famous. For example: Who had the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase? That was a minor Constitutional crisis.

Not to mention the Constitution as originally written doesn't lay out the chain of succession, doesn't lay out a single role for the Judicial, doesn't lay out a method for stopping Congress from passing laws that are unconstitutional, doesn't address a method to determine a law's constitutionality, nor even provide for resolving when two states disagree on whether a Federal law is constitutional.

Its vague, and as such implied powers have been there from almost the start.

It doesn't mention an Air Force, because there were no airplanes yet at that time.

But yet, apparently it was constitutional to create an Air Force once airplanes were invented.

Since only Navy and Army are listed, how else does one assume Air Force is authorized, then to blanket "common defense" as justification?

The government is RIDDLED with authority to do things not specifically listed in the constitution that many conservatives never make a peep about.

 

[johnrocks]

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

I don't debate that farm subsidies programs have overwhelmingly helped large corporations over small farms. The large coroporations organize towards subsidies and have the resources to do it.

The idea we could run out of food or that we could find ourselves cut off from overseas food suplies isn't that absurd. After all, OPEC cut us off from oil in the 70's despite enormous lost revenues. In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl. The figures on malnutrition to outright starvation in the lowest income levels now are astounding.

Feeding the world population is a problem that is growing rapidly. We'll also have to face that at some very future point. If we fail to protect American agriculture, we'll have a lot less flexibility to handle that situation when it comes.

I agree subsidies might not be the best way to do it, but we do need to find some tool that can work rather than just letting what happens happen.

Perhaps actually trusting the free market system more, Australia and New Zealand ;I think; ended farm subsidies and I don't hear about them starving, several things from nuts to pineapples don't have subsidies and yet we still have pecan and pineapple growers.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

That doesn't exactly fly right. The Constitution has always had implied powers where it makes sense. Finding justification for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc requires reading just as tenous as a lot of the arguments for Social Security, Medicare, etc. After all, the Constitution only specifically mentions the Army and Navy when it comes to national defense, and militias at the State level. So where do independent intelligence gathering agencies and Federal law enforcement enter the picture?

A few extremely famous. For example: Who had the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase? That was a minor Constitutional crisis.

Not to mention the Constitution as originally written doesn't lay out the chain of succession, doesn't lay out a single role for the Judicial, doesn't lay out a method for stopping Congress from passing laws that are unconstitutional, doesn't address a method to determine a law's constitutionality, nor even provide for resolving when two states disagree on whether a Federal law is constitutional.

Its vague, and as such implied powers have been there from almost the start.

It doesn't mention an Air Force, because there were no airplanes yet at that time.

But yet, apparently it was constitutional to create an Air Force once airplanes were invented.

Since only Navy and Army are listed, how else does one assume Air Force is authorized, then to blanket "common defense" as justification?

The government is RIDDLED with authority to do things not specifically listed in the constitution that many conservatives never make a peep about.

This.

Study up and you'll see a lot of the Founders, while still alive, found themselves grappling with how best to address issues at the Federal Level that the Constitution doesn't even start to address.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

I don't debate that farm subsidies programs have overwhelmingly helped large corporations over small farms. The large coroporations organize towards subsidies and have the resources to do it.

The idea we could run out of food or that we could find ourselves cut off from overseas food suplies isn't that absurd. After all, OPEC cut us off from oil in the 70's despite enormous lost revenues. In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl. The figures on malnutrition to outright starvation in the lowest income levels now are astounding.

Feeding the world population is a problem that is growing rapidly. We'll also have to face that at some very future point. If we fail to protect American agriculture, we'll have a lot less flexibility to handle that situation when it comes.

I agree subsidies might not be the best way to do it, but we do need to find some tool that can work rather than just letting what happens happen.

Perhaps actually trusting the free market system more, Australia and New Zealand ;I think; ended farm subsidies and I don't hear about them starving, several things from nuts to pineapples don't have subsidies and yet we still have pecan and pineapple growers.

I'd want to learn more about how they handled it. For example, what does their import export laws look like?

Subsidies aren't the only way to protect Agriculture. That much I do agree with.