Forced Charity

[alan1]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Now, I think I am a charitable man, and here are a few links to some of my favorite charitable organizations that I contributed to in 2008,

Disabled American Veterans - Donate

Donate Now

American Red Cross: Donate Now

National Marrow Donor Program: Contribute Now - support the work of the National Marrow Donor Program

Susan G. Komen for the Cure | Donate | Donate

Prostate Cancer Foundation

What you may or may not notice from the above links is that the government gives taxpayer money to almost all of them. Even though I personally support every one of those charities linked above, I don’t want the government using tax dollars to support them.
I don’t want the government deciding which charities are worthy of my taxes and which are not. It’s not theirs to give, Not Yours To Give - Colonel Davy Crockett

 

[PoliticalChic]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Now, I think I am a charitable man, and here are a few links to some of my favorite charitable organizations that I contributed to in 2008,

Disabled American Veterans - Donate

Donate Now

American Red Cross: Donate Now

National Marrow Donor Program: Contribute Now - support the work of the National Marrow Donor Program

Susan G. Komen for the Cure | Donate | Donate

Prostate Cancer Foundation

What you may or may not notice from the above links is that the government gives taxpayer money to almost all of them. Even though I personally support every one of those charities linked above, I don’t want the government using tax dollars to support them.
I don’t want the government deciding which charities are worthy of my taxes and which are not. It’s not theirs to give, Not Yours To Give - Colonel Davy Crockett

Certainly you must know that there is no such clause in the Constitution. The perspective of the Founding Fathers is summarized by Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

The father of the Democrat party, Andrew Jackson, vetoed bills for harbor repair, believing that it was a local obligation.
THE RIVER AND HARBOR FRAUD. - Article Preview - The New York Times

From earliest times in America, charity was a private, not public oblgation. “The Scot Charitable Society,” was organized in Boston in 1657.

This concept marks a significant difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it.. This explains why conservative give more charity than liberals.

A check of the charitable contribution history of President Obama and Vice-President Biden will verify this.

 

[Iriemon]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Art I Sec 8: "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"?

 

[Seraega]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Art I Sec 8: "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"?

Winner.

Promote the general welfare... in other words, keep the people pacified so they don't bring their torches and pitchforks to bear on the AIG execs and other greedy bankers.

 

[alan1]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Art I Sec 8: "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"?

So, do you think that extends to the government being able to tax a minority (smokers) to pay for another minorities (SCHIP recipients) general welfare?
Suppose the government wanted to tax a minority (homosexuals) to pay for health care for another minority (Asians), would that be allowed under your interpretation of Article 1 Section 8?

 

[Annie]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Art I Sec 8: "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"?

So, do you think that extends to the government being able to tax a minority (smokers) to pay for another minorities (SCHIP recipients) general welfare?
Suppose the government wanted to tax a minority (homosexuals) to pay for health care for another minority (Asians), would that be allowed under your interpretation of Article 1 Section 8?

See, actually it's like this:

The American Way - David Freddoso - The Corner on National Review Online

The American Way [David Freddoso]
Cook County Board President Todd Stroger recently explained cigarette tax increases in an unexpectedly candid radio interview.

Host John Williams asked: Isn't it unfair to keep targeting smokers with tax increases?

"

That is the American way," Stroger replied. "And the way that it's generally done is, you find some group that's small enough where they can't beat you up, and you tax them and you tell everybody else, 'See? We didn't tax you.' "​

This is President Obama's plan, too, if you understand what he is doing and hopes to do to high-income earners, energy producers, small-business owners and yes, smokers.

You might want to google Todd Stroger, he's about as interesting at Rod Blagojevich, seriously.

 

[random3434]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

 

[Iriemon]

Forced Charity

I’m just curious, what part of the US Constitution allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous at large or for being a member of a minority group?

At large are things like welfare, WIC, etc.
A minority group would be smokers paying for SCHIP.

Art I Sec 8: "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"?

So, do you think that extends to the government being able to tax a minority (smokers) to pay for another minorities (SCHIP recipients) general welfare?

Suppose the government wanted to tax a minority (homosexuals) to pay for health care for another minority (Asians), would that be allowed under your interpretation of Article 1 Section 8?

Could be. The language sounds pretty broad. Reducing smoking giving the hundreds of thousands that die each year could probably be argued more for the general welfare than the latter case, though laws outright criminalizing homosexual behavior have been upheld so maybe taxing them would be too. I think the argument of paying health care for a racially based group would be a stretch.

 

[alan1]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

I think the government has no business targeting specific minority groups for taxation.
And no business deciding what charities should be funded with tax payer dollars.
Please read the last link in my original post.

 

[Annie]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.

 

[alan1]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.

Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the health care system in the long run.
Your View: Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people

 

[Annie]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.

Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the health care system in the long run.
Your View: Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people

Damn, sometimes I'm smarter than I think!

 

[alan1]

It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.

Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the health care system in the long run.
Your View: Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people

Damn, sometimes I'm smarter than I think!

Yeah, bookmark that link and throw it in the face of everybody that want's to claim smokers or fat people are a drain on the health care industry.

P.S.
I'm not fat, but I smoke.

 

[Annie]

Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the health care system in the long run.
Your View: Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people

Damn, sometimes I'm smarter than I think!

Yeah, bookmark that link and throw it in the face of everybody that want's to claim smokers or fat people are a drain on the health care industry.

P.S.
I'm not fat, but I smoke.

Me too, but aiming to quit. I don't think I'll become a nasty ex, not in my nature.

 

[Seraega]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.

Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the health care system in the long run.
Your View: Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people

There's a policy any compassionate human can get behind. Early death is cheaper than a long life.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's 'targeting' one set of taxpayers, over and over again. Stroger was honest on that one.

I hear about the smokers causing all the health costs? I don't think that's probably correct, as they are much more likely to die of heart or stroke. The COPD stuff is nasty, but for the most part they're covered by insurance and die before receiving much medicare. Figure they're doing everyone a favor and not waiting to see if Soylent Green becomes reality.

Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the health care system in the long run.
Your View: Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people

There's a policy any compassionate human can get behind. Early death is cheaper than a long life.

But a long unhappy life is wasted while a short productive and happy life is pure gold.

 

[Red Dawn]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

I think the Bush voters just want our taxes spent on the Pentagon, war, and Halliburton.

 

[WillowTree]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

When did you quit EZ? Congrats,, best decision you ever made.

 

[alan1]

So you are upset the high tax hikes on cigs are going to SCHIP? What if it was going to more infrastructure and schools? I'm not trying to flame, I really want to know.

I know if I was still a smoker, I'd be mad about paying 7 bucks a pack for some Marlboro Lights right now.

When did you quit EZ? Congrats,, best decision you ever made.

She quit because she hates poor children and doesn't want to support their health care.

 

[KittenKoder]

MM ...