How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[TyroneSlothrop]

Would you really like the story behind what Jesus said? I can post the link if you'd like. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Jesus only wanted our wages CONFISCATED BY Taxes proovided that it goes to the war Machine...if the Government uses it to feed the poor is like putting a Crown of Thorn on Jesus ...Jesus only Approves these types of Expenditures Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Of course why can't everyone sees that Jesus hates the Government for helping the poor instead of using taxes to Kill....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

But social welfare does benefit society as a whole, not just those that receive the benefits. There is ample evidence of the damage to society that occurs when people don't have food, shelter, access to healthcare, and when kids don't get an education. We all lose.

We all pay tax dollars for programs that we may not personally use, money for parks, money to protect wildlife, money to protect the environment, money to support museums, money for national monuments, money for space exploration, money for scientific research, money for recreation facilities, money for tribal lands, money for national and international disasters, and of course social welfare programs. These are all things we may never use, but they certainly make our nation, cities, and towns a better place to live.

And how much better place would it be to live when this country goes into default because of too much borrowing?

If you give people an easy way out, they will not try very hard. If people have a more difficult time, they will try harder.

Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody, because to use the excuse of indirectly benefiting anybody, just about anything can be put in that category.

Me going to work everyday benefits society. I can keep up my home to keep home values up in my neighborhood, I create tax money for my city, state and federal government that way, I don't have to use any government social programs, but because of those indirect benefits to society, that doesn't mean that government should buy me a car and pay my insurance so I can get to work and do these things.

Currently we do have people without homes, people don't have access to healthcare coverage (me being one of those people) and people not eating properly. But believe it or not, the country and society are doing just fine.

If taxes should only be spent on what directly benefits everybody this country would be a pretty crappy place to live.
No education for kids whose parents can't or refuse to pay
No tax dollars for national monuments or parks
No tax dollars for museums
No tax dollars trails
No tax dollars for wildlife protection
No tax dollars for natural disasters
No tax dollars for public beaches
No tax dollars for public swimming pools
No tax dollars recreation centers
No tax dollars for basic scientific research
No tax dollars for public restrooms
No tax dollars for sidewalks
No tax dollars space exportation
No tax dollars for outdoor concerts, fireworks, or fairs
No tax dollars for the facilities for the disable
No tax dollars for facilities for the mentally handicapped.
Etc.....

I won't go through your entire list, but I'll comment on a few:

Kids education: if we didn't have public education, then maybe people wouldn't have kids they couldn't take care of.

National monuments or parks. How does that benefit society as a whole?

Museums. Never been to one and probably never will. I've lived fine without them.

Trails: local tax dollars--not federal.

Public swimming pools, again, local tax dollars most likely voted on by the citizens of that city.

Space exploration: benefits all of society one way or another.

Tax dollars for concerts, fireworks and fairs. All could be paid for with an admission charge. Only those who want those things would pay for them. Again, paid for with local tax dollars and not federal.

Recreation centers. Again, how does that benefit all of society?

You see now that what I've been saying is true. You can put anything under the category of society benefits including entertainment.

If goverment supported only what everyone directly benefited from, this country would be a pretty rotten place to live. Our national parks and monuments, and museums would disappear. Our public beaches and seashores would be privately owned with little or no public access. Most public facilities for the disable would not exist nor public recreation centers, ect. It might be fine with you if there was no goverment supported museums because you don't use them but for me that would be a huge loss. It would be fine for me if there were no public facilities for the disable because I don't need them but that would certainly be a problem for my neighbor who is in wheelchair. I have no use of public beaches; haven't been to one in 25 years, however my grand kids couldn't imagine summer without the beaches and seashore.

So if government only supports what is of benefit to everyone, we all loose because there are many things in society we use that other do not which can not be effectively provide to the public by commercial interest.

Remember we are talking about the federal government here--not state, city or county.

The state government can do as they please because they would only be using state money. If a state wants to maintain beaches, support museums, provide for the handicapped, that's fine with me. But the federal government has (or should have) limitations on what they spend money on. That's why the Constitution outlines those things in the Powers of Congress. Outside of those things, a state or city can spend their own money anyway they desire. I may not be for some of those things, but I have more voting power against representatives that I believe are wasting my tax dollars.

For instance our county government operates the metro parks. We vote for the levies that support those parks. Same with libraries. We have to vote to spend money on libraries. Some of them are even renewal levies that come out every five years or so.

I vote all those things out. But in many cases others vote differently. If we get to the point we are spending more money than taxes provide, we have choices to make. We can continue to let them spend us into the hole, raise taxes, or stop funding non-essential things we believe we can do without.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"We kind o' thought Christ went agin war an' pillage." James Russell Lowell:
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"We kind o' thought Christ went agin war an' pillage." James Russell Lowell:
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

Confiscated...yeah those Poor people are a real drain on our Money

 

[danielpalos]

When you take YOUR OWN money and give it to the needy, that's a great thing. When you take other peoples money and give it to the needy and claim credit for yourself, that's liberalism.

Jesus only wants you sweetie to pay taxes when the taxes go to pay for flaming Napalm to drop on the poor folks in other countries...if that is what you want to believe go for it LOL

By the way I laugh at your term "confiscated" you only use it when the money goes to the poor and the elderly...the Confiscation is Only Good when it goes for KILLINGs
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

 

[P@triot]

Adam Carolla has the solution for how to stop the poor from being so problematic...

 

[Flopper]

But social welfare does benefit society as a whole, not just those that receive the benefits. There is ample evidence of the damage to society that occurs when people don't have food, shelter, access to healthcare, and when kids don't get an education. We all lose.

We all pay tax dollars for programs that we may not personally use, money for parks, money to protect wildlife, money to protect the environment, money to support museums, money for national monuments, money for space exploration, money for scientific research, money for recreation facilities, money for tribal lands, money for national and international disasters, and of course social welfare programs. These are all things we may never use, but they certainly make our nation, cities, and towns a better place to live.

And how much better place would it be to live when this country goes into default because of too much borrowing?

If you give people an easy way out, they will not try very hard. If people have a more difficult time, they will try harder.

Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody, because to use the excuse of indirectly benefiting anybody, just about anything can be put in that category.

Me going to work everyday benefits society. I can keep up my home to keep home values up in my neighborhood, I create tax money for my city, state and federal government that way, I don't have to use any government social programs, but because of those indirect benefits to society, that doesn't mean that government should buy me a car and pay my insurance so I can get to work and do these things.

Currently we do have people without homes, people don't have access to healthcare coverage (me being one of those people) and people not eating properly. But believe it or not, the country and society are doing just fine.

If taxes should only be spent on what directly benefits everybody this country would be a pretty crappy place to live.
No education for kids whose parents can't or refuse to pay
No tax dollars for national monuments or parks
No tax dollars for museums
No tax dollars trails
No tax dollars for wildlife protection
No tax dollars for natural disasters
No tax dollars for public beaches
No tax dollars for public swimming pools
No tax dollars recreation centers
No tax dollars for basic scientific research
No tax dollars for public restrooms
No tax dollars for sidewalks
No tax dollars space exportation
No tax dollars for outdoor concerts, fireworks, or fairs
No tax dollars for the facilities for the disable
No tax dollars for facilities for the mentally handicapped.
Etc.....

I won't go through your entire list, but I'll comment on a few:

Kids education: if we didn't have public education, then maybe people wouldn't have kids they couldn't take care of.

National monuments or parks. How does that benefit society as a whole?

Museums. Never been to one and probably never will. I've lived fine without them.

Trails: local tax dollars--not federal.

Public swimming pools, again, local tax dollars most likely voted on by the citizens of that city.

Space exploration: benefits all of society one way or another.

Tax dollars for concerts, fireworks and fairs. All could be paid for with an admission charge. Only those who want those things would pay for them. Again, paid for with local tax dollars and not federal.

Recreation centers. Again, how does that benefit all of society?

You see now that what I've been saying is true. You can put anything under the category of society benefits including entertainment.

If goverment supported only what everyone directly benefited from, this country would be a pretty rotten place to live. Our national parks and monuments, and museums would disappear. Our public beaches and seashores would be privately owned with little or no public access. Most public facilities for the disable would not exist nor public recreation centers, ect. It might be fine with you if there was no goverment supported museums because you don't use them but for me that would be a huge loss. It would be fine for me if there were no public facilities for the disable because I don't need them but that would certainly be a problem for my neighbor who is in wheelchair. I have no use of public beaches; haven't been to one in 25 years, however my grand kids couldn't imagine summer without the beaches and seashore.

So if government only supports what is of benefit to everyone, we all loose because there are many things in society we use that other do not which can not be effectively provide to the public by commercial interest.

Remember we are talking about the federal government here--not state, city or county.

The state government can do as they please because they would only be using state money. If a state wants to maintain beaches, support museums, provide for the handicapped, that's fine with me. But the federal government has (or should have) limitations on what they spend money on. That's why the Constitution outlines those things in the Powers of Congress. Outside of those things, a state or city can spend their own money anyway they desire. I may not be for some of those things, but I have more voting power against representatives that I believe are wasting my tax dollars.

For instance our county government operates the metro parks. We vote for the levies that support those parks. Same with libraries. We have to vote to spend money on libraries. Some of them are even renewal levies that come out every five years or so.

I vote all those things out. But in many cases others vote differently. If we get to the point we are spending more money than taxes provide, we have choices to make. We can continue to let them spend us into the hole, raise taxes, or stop funding non-essential things we believe we can do without.

In your post you said, "Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody." You did not specify federal taxes.

However, I'm pretty sure that is what you mean so let's take a look at the constitution to see how congress limits federal spending. That means back to the General Welfare Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
"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;"

Clearly this clause gives congress the power to spend revenues on the General Welfare of the United States as well as the Defense.
But what is the General Welfare? SCOTUS has clarified this in a ruling in 1833. The General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. So congress does not have unlimited legislative power but it can spend money on damn near anything.
General welfare clause - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal Congress:

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;"

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The poor are pretty bad, but so are the rich.

Look at the rich outsourcing jobs, and who hire illegal immigrants, all to maximize profits, at our expense.

Don't even get me started on the war caused by the rich, which has killed many Americans, and non-Americans.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Glad I could make you cry snowflake.

So, you're a racist. Do you come by it honestly? Or do you yell foul and flail around?

Rather
Annoying
Communist
Inspired
Silencing
Tactic

I am a Racial Socialist and Creator. I am 100% pro white and want a 100% white world. Hell I am a proud White Supremacist.

wait wut's a racial creator?
That's one I haven't heard before.

Racial Socialism is my ideology and Creativity is my religion. We are called Creators or Racial Socialists depending on whether talking about religion or politics.

Everything you would want to know is at this link. Creativity Alliance – Incorporating Your Church of Creativity

Glad I could make you cry snowflake.

Go reproduce. White population is dropping!

Me and my wife have 4 white kids and are trying for a 5th! My older brother has 5 white kids,my mother had 5 white kids etc etc.

Are you SURE they're all white?

You never know when a mocha surprise could turn up from a past generation's indiscretion.....

Great thing about being so smart is I have a LOVE of genealogy I have traced both sides back quite far. We are all white darling.

Too bad . Have you heard of "hybrid vigor"?

Mutts are healthier.

Puerto Ricans are almost all tri-racial, and gee what an outstanding beacon of Humanity they are.

 

[OKTexas]

When you take YOUR OWN money and give it to the needy, that's a great thing. When you take other peoples money and give it to the needy and claim credit for yourself, that's liberalism.

Jesus only wants you sweetie to pay taxes when the taxes go to pay for flaming Napalm to drop on the poor folks in other countries...if that is what you want to believe go for it LOL

By the way I laugh at your term "confiscated" you only use it when the money goes to the poor and the elderly...the Confiscation is Only Good when it goes for KILLINGs
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

 

[OKTexas]

And how much better place would it be to live when this country goes into default because of too much borrowing?

If you give people an easy way out, they will not try very hard. If people have a more difficult time, they will try harder.

Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody, because to use the excuse of indirectly benefiting anybody, just about anything can be put in that category.

Me going to work everyday benefits society. I can keep up my home to keep home values up in my neighborhood, I create tax money for my city, state and federal government that way, I don't have to use any government social programs, but because of those indirect benefits to society, that doesn't mean that government should buy me a car and pay my insurance so I can get to work and do these things.

Currently we do have people without homes, people don't have access to healthcare coverage (me being one of those people) and people not eating properly. But believe it or not, the country and society are doing just fine.

If taxes should only be spent on what directly benefits everybody this country would be a pretty crappy place to live.
No education for kids whose parents can't or refuse to pay
No tax dollars for national monuments or parks
No tax dollars for museums
No tax dollars trails
No tax dollars for wildlife protection
No tax dollars for natural disasters
No tax dollars for public beaches
No tax dollars for public swimming pools
No tax dollars recreation centers
No tax dollars for basic scientific research
No tax dollars for public restrooms
No tax dollars for sidewalks
No tax dollars space exportation
No tax dollars for outdoor concerts, fireworks, or fairs
No tax dollars for the facilities for the disable
No tax dollars for facilities for the mentally handicapped.
Etc.....

I won't go through your entire list, but I'll comment on a few:

Kids education: if we didn't have public education, then maybe people wouldn't have kids they couldn't take care of.

National monuments or parks. How does that benefit society as a whole?

Museums. Never been to one and probably never will. I've lived fine without them.

Trails: local tax dollars--not federal.

Public swimming pools, again, local tax dollars most likely voted on by the citizens of that city.

Space exploration: benefits all of society one way or another.

Tax dollars for concerts, fireworks and fairs. All could be paid for with an admission charge. Only those who want those things would pay for them. Again, paid for with local tax dollars and not federal.

Recreation centers. Again, how does that benefit all of society?

You see now that what I've been saying is true. You can put anything under the category of society benefits including entertainment.

If goverment supported only what everyone directly benefited from, this country would be a pretty rotten place to live. Our national parks and monuments, and museums would disappear. Our public beaches and seashores would be privately owned with little or no public access. Most public facilities for the disable would not exist nor public recreation centers, ect. It might be fine with you if there was no goverment supported museums because you don't use them but for me that would be a huge loss. It would be fine for me if there were no public facilities for the disable because I don't need them but that would certainly be a problem for my neighbor who is in wheelchair. I have no use of public beaches; haven't been to one in 25 years, however my grand kids couldn't imagine summer without the beaches and seashore.

So if government only supports what is of benefit to everyone, we all loose because there are many things in society we use that other do not which can not be effectively provide to the public by commercial interest.

Remember we are talking about the federal government here--not state, city or county.

The state government can do as they please because they would only be using state money. If a state wants to maintain beaches, support museums, provide for the handicapped, that's fine with me. But the federal government has (or should have) limitations on what they spend money on. That's why the Constitution outlines those things in the Powers of Congress. Outside of those things, a state or city can spend their own money anyway they desire. I may not be for some of those things, but I have more voting power against representatives that I believe are wasting my tax dollars.

For instance our county government operates the metro parks. We vote for the levies that support those parks. Same with libraries. We have to vote to spend money on libraries. Some of them are even renewal levies that come out every five years or so.

I vote all those things out. But in many cases others vote differently. If we get to the point we are spending more money than taxes provide, we have choices to make. We can continue to let them spend us into the hole, raise taxes, or stop funding non-essential things we believe we can do without.

In your post you said, "Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody." You did not specify federal taxes.

However, I'm pretty sure that is what you mean so let's take a look at the constitution to see how congress limits federal spending. That means back to the General Welfare Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
"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;"

Clearly this clause gives congress the power to spend revenues on the General Welfare of the United States as well as the Defense.
But what is the General Welfare? SCOTUS has clarified this in a ruling in 1833. The General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. So congress does not have unlimited legislative power but it can spend money on damn near anything.
General welfare clause - Wikipedia

That's not what James Madison or Thomas Jefferson said.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)



The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison Federalist 45

 

[JBond]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

A Cadillac for every vasectomy and tubal ligation? That was presented to me by a good liberal friend.

 

[danielpalos]

When you take YOUR OWN money and give it to the needy, that's a great thing. When you take other peoples money and give it to the needy and claim credit for yourself, that's liberalism.

Jesus only wants you sweetie to pay taxes when the taxes go to pay for flaming Napalm to drop on the poor folks in other countries...if that is what you want to believe go for it LOL

By the way I laugh at your term "confiscated" you only use it when the money goes to the poor and the elderly...the Confiscation is Only Good when it goes for KILLINGs
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

I will try to keep it simple for you, right winger.

We do not have a common offense clause nor general warfare clause in our federal Constitution. We have a Common defense clause and a General welfare clause.

 

[OKTexas]

When you take YOUR OWN money and give it to the needy, that's a great thing. When you take other peoples money and give it to the needy and claim credit for yourself, that's liberalism.

Jesus only wants you sweetie to pay taxes when the taxes go to pay for flaming Napalm to drop on the poor folks in other countries...if that is what you want to believe go for it LOL

By the way I laugh at your term "confiscated" you only use it when the money goes to the poor and the elderly...the Confiscation is Only Good when it goes for KILLINGs
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

I will try to keep it simple for you, right winger.

We do not have a common offense clause nor general warfare clause in our federal Constitution. We have a Common defense clause and a General welfare clause.

See post #1012 freak.

 

[danielpalos]

When you take YOUR OWN money and give it to the needy, that's a great thing. When you take other peoples money and give it to the needy and claim credit for yourself, that's liberalism.

Jesus only wants you sweetie to pay taxes when the taxes go to pay for flaming Napalm to drop on the poor folks in other countries...if that is what you want to believe go for it LOL

By the way I laugh at your term "confiscated" you only use it when the money goes to the poor and the elderly...the Confiscation is Only Good when it goes for KILLINGs
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

I will try to keep it simple for you, right winger.

We do not have a common offense clause nor general warfare clause in our federal Constitution. We have a Common defense clause and a General welfare clause.

See post #1012 freak.

sorry about that; i didn't mean to quibble that point with you.

here is the simplified version:

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal Congress by We the People:


The Congress shall have the 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:​

 

[OKTexas]

Jesus only wants you sweetie to pay taxes when the taxes go to pay for flaming Napalm to drop on the poor folks in other countries...if that is what you want to believe go for it LOL

By the way I laugh at your term "confiscated" you only use it when the money goes to the poor and the elderly...the Confiscation is Only Good when it goes for KILLINGs
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,754,886,448,763

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

I will try to keep it simple for you, right winger.

We do not have a common offense clause nor general warfare clause in our federal Constitution. We have a Common defense clause and a General welfare clause.

See post #1012 freak.

sorry about that; i didn't mean to quibble that point with you.

here is the simplified version:

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal Congress by We the People:


The Congress shall have the 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:​

Maybe you should include the remainder of the paragraph so you have some context.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You people really believe by cutting education for the poor, cutting job training, doing away with workers protections and just throwing people onto the cold hard street is going to make them not poor? lol...

You'll have 10 times as many poor with this mindset.

What we need to focus on is rebuilding a middle class and we do this by 1. Enforcing antitrust laws the keep the richest from running the little guy out of the market and 2. Moving more of the wealth into the hands of more people by either increasing wages(minimum wage or some kind of pay to the lowest worker like law) or more education/high paying skills for more Americans.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, the right wing would have us believe social services cost too much with a General Welfare clause, not a common welfare clause.

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

I will try to keep it simple for you, right winger.

We do not have a common offense clause nor general warfare clause in our federal Constitution. We have a Common defense clause and a General welfare clause.

See post #1012 freak.

sorry about that; i didn't mean to quibble that point with you.

here is the simplified version:

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal Congress by We the People:


The Congress shall have the 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:​

Maybe you should include the remainder of the paragraph so you have some context.

The Congress shall have the 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:

There is nothing ambiguous about the general powers; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare.

 

[OKTexas]

The tax and spend clause does not give individual powers, the limiting clauses that follow it do. You're just not very smart, are ya?

I will try to keep it simple for you, right winger.

We do not have a common offense clause nor general warfare clause in our federal Constitution. We have a Common defense clause and a General welfare clause.

See post #1012 freak.

sorry about that; i didn't mean to quibble that point with you.

here is the simplified version:

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal Congress by We the People:


The Congress shall have the 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:​

Maybe you should include the remainder of the paragraph so you have some context.

The Congress shall have the 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:

There is nothing ambiguous about the general powers; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare.

Except general welfare and common defense weren't general powers, they were spending categories just like paying the existing debt. The were limited in the remainder of the paragraph to specific powers that were to be paid for.