Forced Charity

[Amanda]

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

Uh oh... you may not be a lib after all.

 

[KittenKoder]

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

Uh oh... you may not be a lib after all.

MM is another one of us who don't "fit" into any one group ... we are rainbows within the rainbow that is our country.

 

[alan1]

Uh oh... you may not be a lib after all.

Oh shit, I'm not?
Where did I go right?

 

[editec]

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?

You don't know about the SECRET CLAUSES OF THE US CONSTITUTION?

There's the clause that allows the government to force charitable giving upon the American populous.

And that secret section also has the part which says:

"Never give a sucker an even break";

"Whatever the market can bear"; and

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

 

[Vel]

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.

I'm also an ex smoker that finds it just plain wrong for the government to target one group and one product to tax in order to provide benefits for another. It almost makes me want to grow a few burly plants out back and give it away as Christmas gifts. As to the health issues.. I had a friend once tell me that smoking will take ten years off your life. He then pointed out that it was the LAST ten years and who really wants those anyway. Kind of makes sense to me.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

I'm also an ex smoker that finds it just plain wrong for the government to target one group and one product to tax in order to provide benefits for another. It almost makes me want to grow a few burly plants out back and give it away as Christmas gifts. As to the health issues.. I had a friend once tell me that smoking will take ten years off your life. He then pointed out that it was the LAST ten years and who really wants those anyway. Kind of makes sense to me.

Well worded ... and I agree with the friend whole heartedly. To add, you never know if you would be able to live those ten years either, chances are you won't anyway so why worry about them. When I stop, it will be because I want to, nothing else.

 

[Gunny]

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

The term "forced charity" is an oxymoron. They are mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

Winner? Really? What an ingenius interpretation of "general welfare".... "Cherry picking" mean anything?

To Provide for the General Welfare: A History of the Federal Spending Power | Book Reviews
Published by EH.NET (January 2005)

Theodore Sky, To Provide for the General Welfare: A History of the Federal Spending Power. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 2003. 442 pp. $75 (cloth), ISBN: 0-87413-793-4.

Reviewed for EH.NET by Michael R. Adamson.

[excerpt]
To Provide for the General Welfare traces in meticulous detail and with close reasoning executive branch interpretations of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which delegated authority to Congress "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." It relies on the public papers of the presidents, especially annual messages, speeches, and veto messages, and, to a lesser extent diaries and correspondence, to show how Alexander Hamilton's broad reading of the clause, expressed in his Report on Manufactures, prevailed over James Madison's "strict constructionist" view, argued vigorously in Federalist No. 41, his 1817 veto of an internal improvements bill, and an 1830 letter to Andrew Stevenson, the speaker of the House. Madison held that Article I, Section 8 limited the scope of federal spending to the enumerated powers listed therein. For Hamilton, no constitutional amendment was necessary to justify federal spending beyond these powers, provided that the funds were appropriated on behalf of the general welfare of the people, rather than the particular interests of a state or section. The decisions of the presidents who believed that a constitutional amendment was required to expand the scope of the general welfare clause (namely Thomas Jefferson, Madison, and James Monroe) to put nation building above political theory and constitutional interpretation in their sanctioning of federal funding of certain public works projects ensured that Hamilton's reading of the clause would prevail. The actions of the Democratic-Republican presidents in the first quarter of the nineteenth century paved the way for an evolutionary expansion in the scope and scale of federal spending that traces its lineage through presidents John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. In this context, the vetoing of certain public works projects by Andrew Jackson and other Democratic presidents during the balance of the nineteenth century constitute mere pauses on the road to a more expansive and progressive American state.

To Provide for the General Welfare: A History of the Federal Spending Power | Book Reviews | EH.Net

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

Actually, statistics show that the majority of those who still smoke are in the lower income brackets and less educated group. So, what you have is a (hypocritical) non-solution . The very people that are supposed to benefit from SCHIP (the lower income brackets) are the ones who are paying (in taxes) for the the bulk of the program. The tax was supposed to have been used for prevention and/or cessation education programs, which I don't believe the other smokers (the higher income brackets and more educated group) had/have a problem with.

 

[editec]

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

You don't actually need a Dutch study to prove that.

All you need do is use the governments own findings on how much money is spend on smoking related diseases per patient, versus spending on non-smoking related diseases per patient.

Smokers HC costs are much less on average than that of non-smokers.

The point of taxing smokers is to produce revenue for the state and federal goverment

Any other excuse they give us for taxing tobacco is pure bunk.

 

[DamnYankee]

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

You don't actually need a Dutch study to prove that.

All you need do is use the governments own findings on how much money is spend on smoking related diseases per patient, versus spending on non-smoking related diseases per patient.

Smokers HC costs are much less on average than that of non-smokers.

The point of taxing smokers is to produce revenue for the state and federal goverment

Any other excuse they give us for taxing tobacco is pure bunk.

Here's some more "bunk" for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html


Now the "medical community" has decided that "third-hand smoke" is just as dangerous to us, so I asked myself: WTF is third-hand smoke? Did a victim of second-hand smoke breathe on someone else? No! It's still second-hand smoke; it's just that it's from what's left in the "environment" after the smoker leaves. How about that.... A new "buzz word"....

 

[editec]

Third hand smoke up all our asses, more like, ALLBiz.

 

[Gunny]

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

You don't actually need a Dutch study to prove that.

All you need do is use the governments own findings on how much money is spend on smoking related diseases per patient, versus spending on non-smoking related diseases per patient.

Smokers HC costs are much less on average than that of non-smokers.

The point of taxing smokers is to produce revenue for the state and federal goverment

Any other excuse they give us for taxing tobacco is pure bunk.

Here's some more "bunk" for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html


Now the "medical community" has decided that "third-hand smoke" is just as dangerous to us, so I asked myself: WTF is third-hand smoke? Did a victim of second-hand smoke breathe on someone else? No! It's still second-hand smoke; it's just that it's from what's left in the "environment" after the smoker leaves. How about that.... A new "buzz word"....

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... what's next I wonder ... the drama from the banners in our government just keeps on coming.

Where's that pic when we need it?

 

[DamnYankee]

Third hand smoke up all our asses, more like, ALLBiz.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not minimizing or denying the problem/effects of second-hand smoke. Just saying, there seems to be no end to which THEY [the "preachers" and anti-advocates] won't go to TRY to make a point, no matter how emotional, rather than factual it is.

For instance, when the state legislators here began jawboning about banning smoking while driving, they did so under the guise that the law was one that fell under the category of "driving distraction" -- such as cellphone use, or eating/drinking while driving, etc. You think I was surprised or shocked to find that the sponsor of the bill had suffered the loss of his wife due to cancer? Hmmm.... Quite the legislative motivation, huh?

 

[KittenKoder]

I am still reminded of how "smoking pot helps terrorists" ... and other greats like "if you drink alcohol you'll start doing crack" ... just more extreme twists on very circumstantial connections ... (my new catch phrase I think)

 

[alan1]

I am still reminded of how "smoking pot helps terrorists" ... and other greats like "if you drink alcohol you'll start doing crack" ... just more extreme twists on very circumstantial connections ... (my new catch phrase I think)

I sure hope the Nazi's never rise up again, because I like German beer.