The 'General Welfare' thread

[manifold]

It is to me. You cannot have recognition of unalienable rights and believe one citizen who didn't work for it is entitled to anything another citizen has honorably worked for

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

Wanting to pay less of your money to government and taking someone else's money through government is a double standard?

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

 

[BenNatuf]

Not accepting your editorialized paraphrasing is not the same thing as deny the meaning of words bright guy.

Oh please, your argument has now digressed to me writing "Orange" and you reading it and saying "I know it says Orange, I can read... but I'm not convinced it doesn't mean apple".

Provide for the "GENERAL WELFARE"

What does "General Welfare" mean? It means "overall fiscal health"

of what or whom?

"of The United States" Which means either the individual states or the entire nation as a whole, not individuals within it.

The clause is defined by the words that are there, not by the words the way you want to read them, which would be to morph it into "Provide Generally for Welfare of People in The United States"

How did the founders "Provide for the General Welfare of the United States"

Well, they did it by assuming the war debts of the States, writing uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the States, and Regulating commerce between and amongst them.

There were also things they prohibitted states from doing in order to promote the general welfare of each of the states and by extension the nation as a whole



and things they proscribed the federal government from doing to ensure the General Welfare of each of the states.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another

There are also things they did to provide for the General Welfare of the United States (you know... the country itself), like borrow money on the credit of the United states, tax, impose excizes, tarrifs and duties, Coin and regulate the value of money, and punish counterfieting to ensure the currency.

The term United States does not solely refer to a singularity, it refers to the States that are United; i.e., MA, NY, NJ, CT, VA, etc.

To "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" in no way can be interpretted to mean anything other than to Provide for the welfare of the states or to provide for the welfare of the nation as a whole. It simply does not mean to provide welfare to some people at the expense of the United States, no matter how much you want it to.

There is a way the federal government can constitutionally provide welfare for people, by aportioning block grants to the states (thus providing for thier general Welfare) and letting them figure out how best to spend it. In the scheme of things thats pretty stupid as it would tax federally to provide local services, which would tend to standardize benefits when the COL is not standard (though it can be argued in establishing a base beyond which the states are free to go), and would increase the cost of bureaucracy insuring that even less of the money intended to help actually made it to the target oif the aid. Further, the Federal government could not direct the states on how the money was to be spent or dispersed as the federal government is simply not empowered to give money to or direct money towards any specified individual except in payment of debts or services and has no authority over state budgets.

I hope our friends will take time to read this, friend, because it is brilliant though I oppose even the block grants. The Federal government should be taking no more from the people that is necessary to fufill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It would have to do that in order to have money to issue in block grants. If the federal government has money left over after it collects the taxes and pays its obligations, then it should return that by uniformly reducing taxes.

I agree; however, I was merely pointing out that there is a way for the government to disperse moneys constitutinally, and giving it to individuals ain't it.

 

[kaz]

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

Wanting to pay less of your money to government and taking someone else's money through government is a double standard?

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

I see, so it was never your money in your wallet, it was the "United States" money. Got it.

 

[BenNatuf]

Whether the improvements are enough to justify the costs is an entirely separate debate. But my point is that even though I'm inclined to agree with the position that federal wealth redistribution 'ought' to be unconstitutional, it's not nearly as black and white as a handful of partisan water carriers here would have us believe.

It is to me. You cannot have recognition of unalienable rights and believe one citizen who didn't work for it is entitled to anything another citizen has honorably worked for.

That a person feels compassion for or even personal obligation to help out another is an entirely different thing, but it should be his/her choice and not that of the federal government. Once you give the government power to decide who deserves your property more than you, you have no rights; only privilege that the government allows you to have and could take away at any time.

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

The government choosing to not take a persons money from them and the governemnt choosing to give a person money thats not theirs are not the same thing.

 

[kaz]

Come to think of it, according the black & white crowd, all federal income tax deductions, exemptions and credits are unconstitutional.

Actually you come to that conclusion by not thinking, not by thinking

 

[Ravi]

Whether the improvements are enough to justify the costs is an entirely separate debate. But my point is that even though I'm inclined to agree with the position that federal wealth redistribution 'ought' to be unconstitutional, it's not nearly as black and white as a handful of partisan water carriers here would have us believe.

It is to me. You cannot have recognition of unalienable rights and believe one citizen who didn't work for it is entitled to anything another citizen has honorably worked for.

That a person feels compassion for or even personal obligation to help out another is an entirely different thing, but it should be his/her choice and not that of the federal government. Once you give the government power to decide who deserves your property more than you, you have no rights; only privilege that the government allows you to have and could take away at any time.

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

She probably also approves of the deduction given for having children.

 

[BenNatuf]

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

Wanting to pay less of your money to government and taking someone else's money through government is a double standard?

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

No they are not, it does not cost the government anything to not collect taxes. Cost is what you pay OUT, not what you don't take IN.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh please, your argument has now digressed to me writing "Orange" and you reading it and saying "I know it says Orange, I can read... but I'm not convinced it doesn't mean apple".

Provide for the "GENERAL WELFARE"

What does "General Welfare" mean? It means "overall fiscal health"

of what or whom?

"of The United States" Which means either the individual states or the entire nation as a whole, not individuals within it.

The clause is defined by the words that are there, not by the words the way you want to read them, which would be to morph it into "Provide Generally for Welfare of People in The United States"

How did the founders "Provide for the General Welfare of the United States"

Well, they did it by assuming the war debts of the States, writing uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the States, and Regulating commerce between and amongst them.

There were also things they prohibitted states from doing in order to promote the general welfare of each of the states and by extension the nation as a whole



and things they proscribed the federal government from doing to ensure the General Welfare of each of the states.



There are also things they did to provide for the General Welfare of the United States (you know... the country itself), like borrow money on the credit of the United states, tax, impose excizes, tarrifs and duties, Coin and regulate the value of money, and punish counterfieting to ensure the currency.

The term United States does not solely refer to a singularity, it refers to the States that are United; i.e., MA, NY, NJ, CT, VA, etc.

To "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" in no way can be interpretted to mean anything other than to Provide for the welfare of the states or to provide for the welfare of the nation as a whole. It simply does not mean to provide welfare to some people at the expense of the United States, no matter how much you want it to.

There is a way the federal government can constitutionally provide welfare for people, by aportioning block grants to the states (thus providing for thier general Welfare) and letting them figure out how best to spend it. In the scheme of things thats pretty stupid as it would tax federally to provide local services, which would tend to standardize benefits when the COL is not standard (though it can be argued in establishing a base beyond which the states are free to go), and would increase the cost of bureaucracy insuring that even less of the money intended to help actually made it to the target oif the aid. Further, the Federal government could not direct the states on how the money was to be spent or dispersed as the federal government is simply not empowered to give money to or direct money towards any specified individual except in payment of debts or services and has no authority over state budgets.

I hope our friends will take time to read this, friend, because it is brilliant though I oppose even the block grants. The Federal government should be taking no more from the people that is necessary to fufill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It would have to do that in order to have money to issue in block grants. If the federal government has money left over after it collects the taxes and pays its obligations, then it should return that by uniformly reducing taxes.

I agree; however, I was merely pointing out that there is a way for the government to disperse moneys constitutinally, and giving it to individuals ain't it.

I question whether block grants would be even constitutional though if we go by original intent. They certainly have been horribly destructive by lulling state governments into starting projects that could not be sustained without continuing infusion of federal money. I believe such block grants whether you call it bail outs or stimulus or whatever have been a HUGE contributor to the financial woes of the states that we are now seeing.

 

[Care4all]

I hope our friends will take time to read this, friend, because it is brilliant though I oppose even the block grants. The Federal government should be taking no more from the people that is necessary to fufill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It would have to do that in order to have money to issue in block grants. If the federal government has money left over after it collects the taxes and pays its obligations, then it should return that by uniformly reducing taxes.

I agree; however, I was merely pointing out that there is a way for the government to disperse moneys constitutinally, and giving it to individuals ain't it.

I question whether block grants would be even constitutional though if we go by original intent. They certainly have been horribly destructive by lulling state governments into starting projects that could not be sustained without continuing infusion of federal money. I believe such block grants whether you call it bail outs or stimulus or whatever have been a HUGE contributor to the financial woes of the states that we are now seeing.

I think a good deal of the financial straights the States are in comes from the Housing Bust, not collecting as much property taxes as they did when home prices were higher and NOT saving some of it for a rainy day...

When I had a budget in the private sector as a Buyer/Merchandiser, for my area of business...I always saved at minimum 10-20 percent of my budget...so that I had money to react to things that were good sellers and money to react to the items that were poor sellers...the rainy day fund being held back is critical if one wants to stay on budget and not be overbought.... all of that can translate to government operations.

 

[kaz]

When I had a budget in the private sector as a Buyer/Merchandiser, for my area of business...I always saved at minimum 10-20 percent of my budget...so that I had money to react to things that were good sellers and money to react to the items that were poor sellers...the rainy day fund being held back is critical if one wants to stay on budget and not be overbought.... all of that can translate to government operations.

You only had to do that because you couldn't print money and blame it on the rich for being greedy...

 

[BenNatuf]

Taking this liberalism to its logical end, taxing a persons income is not rightly a tax on their wealth, its a tax on the increase in their wealth. So the premise of liberalism is not to redistribute wealth through the tax code but to redistribute income.

The tax code is the law, and the 14th amendment gaurentees equal treatment under the law. Now, to a conservative this can mean every person pays the same tax, or every person pays the same percentage of tax.

To a liberal it means that those who make more should be taxed at higher levels and those who make less should not be taxed at all; and in fact, should recieve payments from the tax code thereby "equalizing" the outcome. If its equality of the outcome that matters, then by that logic the government should tax all income at 100% and redistribute equally to each individual. Otherwise using their logic there is no equal treatment under the law. If the government has the power to redistribute income then by virtue of the 14th amendment they have a duty to redistribute it equally.

Of course if they did this then the liberals would complain that some people live on the 9th hole of golf courses and some live in run down apartment buildings. So I guess then they would have to redistribute actual wealth and take from everyone everything they own so as to make sure of a proper and equal distribution of assets.

Here comes the problem. Even if you start everyone off with equal income and equal property there are those who will husband their resources and aquire new property and those who will squander their resources and lose what property they have. So, unless you outlaw aquiring and owning property a disparity in wealth will once again arize, and constituionally speaking, you cannot outlaw aquiring and owning property.

Liberalsism does not work.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree; however, I was merely pointing out that there is a way for the government to disperse moneys constitutinally, and giving it to individuals ain't it.

I question whether block grants would be even constitutional though if we go by original intent. They certainly have been horribly destructive by lulling state governments into starting projects that could not be sustained without continuing infusion of federal money. I believe such block grants whether you call it bail outs or stimulus or whatever have been a HUGE contributor to the financial woes of the states that we are now seeing.

I think a good deal of the financial straights the States are in comes from the Housing Bust, not collecting as much property taxes as they did when home prices were higher and NOT saving some of it for a rainy day...

When I had a budget in the private sector as a Buyer/Merchandiser, for my area of business...I always saved at minimum 10-20 percent of my budget...so that I had money to react to things that were good sellers and money to react to the items that were poor sellers...the rainy day fund being held back is critical if one wants to stay on budget and not be overbought.... all of that can translate to government operations.

I'm sure that's a big part of it.

But I do think the block grants by whatever name have been destructive in keeping the states afloat and not forcing them into evaluating and correcting problems.

One anecdotal example that is representative of no doubt thousands across the country:

Our governor used the 'good times' to purchase track and a train intended to be a commuter train from Belen (30 miles south of Albuquerque) to Santa Fe (50 miles north of Albuquerque.) And he was sufficiently supplied with Federal monies, including stimulus monies, to keep that train running. Well now the stimulus monies have dried up, the reserves are gone due to the recession, and we have a very nice train that will be costing the taxpayers millions to run because it in no way can pay for itself.

When you multiply fiascos like that many times over, it pretty well explains why states are strapped for cash and stuck with a lot of obligations they now can't pay for.

It is time to pull in our horns, do what we must to disentangle ourselves from what government at all levels cannot afford, and become fiscally responsible again. And we should (figuratively not literally) hang any politician who presumes to borrow money for something we don't absolutely have to have or who entangles us in something that depends on outside sources of funding to keep afloat.

 

[midcan5]

Funny you should ask, Pauline Maier was on InDepth this month and touched on this topic. Trouble today our constitution is like the Russian Politburo, "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Conservatives use the Constitution as an extension of their right wing ideology, with no clue of the document or its ideas. Discussion below is worth a listen.

In Depth - In Depth: Pauline Maier - Book TV

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/American-Scripture-Making-Declaration-Independence/dp/0679779086/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (9780679779087): Pauline Maier: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ratification-People-Debate-Constitution-1787-1788/dp/0684868547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (9780684868547): Pauline Maier: Books[/ame]

 

[BenNatuf]

I hope our friends will take time to read this, friend, because it is brilliant though I oppose even the block grants. The Federal government should be taking no more from the people that is necessary to fufill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It would have to do that in order to have money to issue in block grants. If the federal government has money left over after it collects the taxes and pays its obligations, then it should return that by uniformly reducing taxes.

I agree; however, I was merely pointing out that there is a way for the government to disperse moneys constitutinally, and giving it to individuals ain't it.

I question whether block grants would be even constitutional though if we go by original intent. They certainly have been horribly destructive by lulling state governments into starting projects that could not be sustained without continuing infusion of federal money. I believe such block grants whether you call it bail outs or stimulus or whatever have been a HUGE contributor to the financial woes of the states that we are now seeing.

I don't know how you could argue against it by claiming original intent seeing as how the founders not only assumed the debts of the states but also aportioned out surplusses to them in the form of no interest never pay me back loans (or what we'd today call grants). The question for the founders wasn't whether they could do it, they knew they could, it was whether they should... they did, and made use of the aportionment system to do it.

 

[Care4all]

When I had a budget in the private sector as a Buyer/Merchandiser, for my area of business...I always saved at minimum 10-20 percent of my budget...so that I had money to react to things that were good sellers and money to react to the items that were poor sellers...the rainy day fund being held back is critical if one wants to stay on budget and not be overbought.... all of that can translate to government operations.

You only had to do that because you couldn't print money and blame it on the rich for being greedy...

Well, there were a few times when i was initially overbought...I just convinced the vp through analysis, that the budget money was best put in my area of business which had opportunity vs another buyer's area... (other buyers hated me for this, even though I was right) and I always got the money I needed, if I could show them that it was the right thing to do for the company...even if it meant the corporation borrowing the extra money, for me initially, when the sales came through as I had predicted through analysis and gut instinct the money borrowed was returned through higher sales...

but yeah, the corps could not print money willy nilly like our government.

 

[Bern80]

Funny you should ask, Pauline Maier was on InDepth this month and touched on this topic. Trouble today our constitution is like the Russian Politburo, "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Conservatives use the Constitution as an extension of their right wing ideology, with no clue of the document or its ideas. Discussion below is worth a listen.

In Depth - In Depth: Pauline Maier - Book TV

Amazon.com: American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (9780679779087): Pauline Maier: Books
Amazon.com: Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (9780684868547): Pauline Maier: Books

............and libs either do mental gymnastics to rationalize it or outright ignore it to advance their left wing ideology.

 

[BenNatuf]

Funny you should ask, Pauline Maier was on InDepth this month and touched on this topic. Trouble today our constitution is like the Russian Politburo, "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Conservatives use the Constitution as an extension of their right wing ideology, with no clue of the document or its ideas. Discussion below is worth a listen.

In Depth - In Depth: Pauline Maier - Book TV

Amazon.com: American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (9780679779087): Pauline Maier: Books
Amazon.com: Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (9780684868547): Pauline Maier: Books

begging the question:

Isn't the purpose of the constitution that we use it?

 

[Late2TheParty]

from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?

I believe general welfare is best understood when you contrast it with the term personal welfare, which the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government any dominion over.

 

[BenNatuf]

from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?

I believe general welfare is best understood when you contrast it with the term personal welfare, which the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government any dominion over.

You did that in much fewer words than I did!!!

 

[Ravi]

Wanting to pay less of your money to government and taking someone else's money through government is a double standard?

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

No they are not, it does not cost the government anything to not collect taxes. Cost is what you pay OUT, not what you don't take IN.

It is the same thing in the end.

If I get a tax break for owning a home and you don't get one because you rent...the government is charging you a higher rate of tax, and providing for the general welfare. Which you believe is unconstitutional until it suits your purposes.