Zone1 How do you want the government to spend your taxes?

What do you want the government to do with the taxes you pay this year?

  • Use my money to provide constitutionally authorized services to all Americans.

  • Use my money to provide necessary services authorized by Congress for all Americans.

  • Use my money to further social causes that I may or may not agree with.

  • Use my money to promote the ideology I embrace.

  • Use my money to fund a transgender comic book for Peru (or similar projects)

  • Use my money to benefit specially targeted groups in America.

  • Use my money to benefit specially targeted groups around the world.

  • Other and I'll explain in my post.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
75,492
Reaction score
42,335
Points
2,645
Location
Desert Southwest USA
After a friendly and pleasant debate on Facebook about loving our neighbor and all those in need are our neighbor wherever they are vs the Bible instructs us to provide for our own family first and that includes a stipulation that if you see your neighbor is in need you should help your neighbor. And that naturally translates into whether we can transfer our responsibility to our family and neighbor for the government to do.

Can we feel righteous if our tax dollars go elsewhere in the world when our neighbor is in need right here in America but we do not have the resources to help a great deal?

Multiple choices are allowed in the poll and you can change your vote.
 
Supply side economics is clear about handing tax dollars paid by the working class, to the very wealthy.

That will then reduce taxation!

Right?
 
So options 1 and 2 do not meet that criteria? Why or why not?
Service to all Americans. Couldnt click that. Charity was not intended in the original Constitution.

Founders Warned that it would corrupt politicians and they would steal it.

Not Yours to Give
 
Supply side economics is clear about handing tax dollars paid by the working class, to the very wealthy.

That will then reduce taxation!

Right?
Not exactly. Supply side economics is the theory is that taxes and regulations reduced in a way that encourages production both promotes jobs and prosperity that increases demand and lowers prices all of which benefits all Americans. So how did you vote in the poll?
 
Not exactly. Supply side economics is the theory is that taxes and regulations reduced in a way that encourages production both promotes jobs and prosperity that increases demand and lowers prices all of which benefits all Americans. So how did you vote in the poll?
There wasnt a I love Communist box for him.
 
Service to all Americans. Couldnt click that. Charity was not intended in the original Constitution.

Founders Warned that it would corrupt politicians and they would steal it.

Not Yours to Give
That is correct. Which is why I specified that services would be provided to all Americans rather than targeted groups. Post office services are provided all without discrimination for instance. National security benefits all Americans rather than this or that demographic. Interstate highways not only enhance our national security but commerce and industry and convenience for all Americans without regard for economic status, race, ethnicity, gender etc.
 
That is correct. Which is why I specified that services would be provided to all Americans rather than targeted groups.
Sevice to all Americans. I dont like the wording.

Enumerated powers are clear
 
Sevice to all Americans. I dont like the wording.

Enumerated powers are clear
Enumerated powers are clear until you get into the various interpretations put on that. Such phrases in the Constitution as 'provide the general welfare' are meant by the Founders as the welfare of all Americans generally rather than provide charity to the needy or whatever. However many Americans interpret that as providing welfare to the needy. And their definition of 'needy' can be quite ambiguous.

If you specify ALL Americans you include not only the needy but the various layers of the middle class and the 1 percenters. In other words the federal government is not authorized to provide charity or benefits to targeted groups but to provide services to all without prejudice.
 
Last edited:
Enumerated powers are clear until you get into the various interpretations put on that. Such phrases in the Constitution as 'provide the general welfare' are meant by the Founders as the welfare of all Americans generally rather than provide charity to the needy or whatever. However many Americans interpret that as providing welfare to the needy.

If you specify ALL Americans you include not only the needy but the various layers of the middle class and the 1 percenters. In other words the federal government is not authorized to provide charity or benefits to targeted groups but to provide services to all without prejudice.
The powers were intended to be small. Simple basic and small.
 
The powers were intended to be small. Simple basic and small.
They were also meant for a population of roughly 3 million people. The population is now 330+ million people. So 'small' is no longer as much an option as it was then. Finland or Norway or Denmark could probably do just fine operating under the policies of our federal government at the turn of the 18th Century. But a country the size of the USA in today's far more dangerous and deadly and complicated world requires somewhat different policies. The basic principles are as solid as they were then though.
 
They were also meant for a population of roughly 3 million people. The population is now 330+ million people. So 'small' is no longer as much an option as it was then. Finland or Norway or Denmark could probably do just fine operating under the policies of our federal government at the turn of the 18th Century. But a country the size of the USA in today's far more dangerous and deadly and complicated world requires somewhat different policies. The basic principles are as solid as they were then though.
6.9 Trilluin in 2024 says different
 
After a friendly and pleasant debate on Facebook about loving our neighbor and all those in need are our neighbor wherever they are vs the Bible instructs us to provide for our own family first and that includes a stipulation that if you see your neighbor is in need you should help your neighbor. And that naturally translates into whether we can transfer our responsibility to our family and neighbor for the government to do.

Can we feel righteous if our tax dollars go elsewhere in the world when our neighbor is in need right here in America but we do not have the resources to help a great deal?

Multiple choices are allowed in the poll and you can change your vote.
Wait.........wut?

When were taxpayers ever asked how their money should be spent?

They don't even know where any of it was going, as we see with revelations about USAID.

But I suspect most democrats want money going to continue to go to the media to buy their continued propaganda for the DNC, and DEI programs all over the world to help push US culture and morality on all nations on earth, a new type of PC colonization has begun to make them all like Americans.

In fact, I'm sure every kid in the US dreams of a better DEI world like the ones we see below



Never mind that the entire world is starving to death and on the verge of economic ruin. Just keep spending money on DEI kids.
 
How so? Just because we have had an irresponsible, unresponsive, self serving government for a very long time now changes nothing in the truth of my post.
Me and you would stop that. But the Swamp. Nope.

Me and you agree. Minor issue on wording only
 
Wait.........wut?

When were taxpayers ever asked how their money should be spent?

They don't even know where any of it was going, as we see with revelations about USAID.

But I suspect most democrats want money going to continue to go to the media to buy their continued propaganda for the DNC, and DEI programs all over the world to help push US culture and morality on all nations on earth, a new type of PC colonization has begun to make them all like Americans.

In fact, I'm sure every kid in the US dreams of a better DEI world like the ones we see below



Never mind that the entire world is starving to death and on the verge of economic ruin. Just keep spending money on DEI kids.

Even Democrats of the 60's. 70's, 80's. 90's would never have agree to $32,000 of taxpayer's money to fund a LGBTQX+++ comic book in Peru or anywhere else. They actually represented their constituents and did ask them what they thought. That's how Reagan managed to get effective tax reforms through despite a Democrat controlled house. That's how a bipartisan congress saved Bill Clinton's presidency.

Now they just label a bill something that looks great but contains little or nothing related to the label and don't give a damn whether the tax payers hard earned money buys anything valuable for Americans or accomplishes anything of value for anybody. But their goal seems to be to bankrupt American or bring it close enough to bankruptcy they can step in on the pretense of 'saving' it, claim unconditional power, and be the ruling class for the foreseeable future.
 
Enumerated powers are clear until you get into the various interpretations put on that. Such phrases in the Constitution as 'provide the general welfare' are meant by the Founders as the welfare of all Americans generally rather than provide charity to the needy or whatever. However many Americans interpret that as providing welfare to the needy. And their definition of 'needy' can be quite ambiguous.

If you specify ALL Americans you include not only the needy but the various layers of the middle class and the 1 percenters. In other words the federal government is not authorized to provide charity or benefits to targeted groups but to provide services to all without prejudice.

A relevant copypasta from a great book in which the topic is briefly discussed...


The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

8. The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies"the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government.

The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts andprovide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on thepower granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." Congress possesses no"general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in TheFederalist number 83.


Hamilton's Opinion

9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflectingthe controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do anyother thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."


The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining andDefining the Original, Controlling Intent

10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) inascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have neve ramended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.


The Founders' Warnings

11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement ofthe Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notablynumbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by publicservants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ."Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom