The 'General Welfare' thread

[Jack Fate]

Then why are all the people who benefit from taxpayers rioting?

Oh, excuse me. If a bunch of lefties gather to create noise and pound on walls and doors it's called "speaking truth to power". Right?

 

[manifold]

Then why are all the people who benefit from taxpayers rioting?

Oh, excuse me. If a bunch of lefties gather to create noise and pound on walls and doors it's called "speaking truth to power". Right?

You can call it whatever you like. But if you insist on calling it 'rioting' then you lose credibility with me. Which I'm sure you don't give a shit about anyway so have at it partisan guy.

 

[Jack Fate]

Oh, excuse me. If a bunch of lefties gather to create noise and pound on walls and doors it's called "speaking truth to power". Right?

You can call it whatever you like. But if you insist on calling it 'rioting' then you lose credibility with me. Which I'm sure you don't give a shit about anyway so have at it partisan guy.

Okay. I can call it something else. How about this. A bunch of nasty, ill-mannered, arrogant pusillanimous pissant prarie punks who think they don't have to answer to anyone but their union bosses and could care less about REAL working families who they insult every time they call themselves "The Working People" without including those who pay for their wages and benefits.

Nothing "partisan" about that statement. it's just good ole common sense Americanism.

 

[manifold]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare? Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

 

[manifold]

Oh, excuse me. If a bunch of lefties gather to create noise and pound on walls and doors it's called "speaking truth to power". Right?

You can call it whatever you like. But if you insist on calling it 'rioting' then you lose credibility with me. Which I'm sure you don't give a shit about anyway so have at it partisan guy.

Okay. I can call it something else. How about this. A bunch of nasty, ill-mannered, arrogant pusillanimous pissant prarie punks who think they don't have to answer to anyone but their union bosses and could care less about REAL working families who they insult every time they call themselves "The Working People" without including those who pay for their wages and benefits.

Nothing "partisan" about that statement. it's just good ole common sense Americanism.

Yeah, nothing partisan at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare? Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

Yes, less crime improves the general welfare which is why the Founders, almost to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a virtuous and morally centered people.

And yes, home ownership encourages stable families, more peaceful and crime free neighborhoods, as does the presence of churches, synagogues, and charitable organizations (which generally produces fewer beggars on the street), and also almost always produces more prosperity which is why I, as an advocate of a true flat tax across the boad, will hope that first home mortgage interest and charitable donations will continue to be deductible.

 

[Bern80]

Which still doesn't explain how "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" morphs into "provide for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States".

I'm not convinced any such morphing has necessarily taken place.

Sure it has. As save liberty noted, anytime taxes are collected from all to give to a few (SS, medicare, medicaid), while it is still welfare it is no longer general, as in for the benefit of everyone.

Really there are three interpretations I've seen so far of the clause

1) It means what Madison said and what government can tax for is strictly determined by the enumerated powers of the clause.

2) Hamilton's slightly broader intepretation that government can spend for things not on the list but what they spend on on must indeed still must both for the welfare (betterment) and general (everone).

3) What seems to be the interpretatino of many libs, if it can loosly be argued that it's for anyone at alls benefit than government can tax for it and spend for it.

 

[Jack Fate]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare? Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

is it government's job to provide a home for every family and an education for every person?

 

[Jack Fate]

You can call it whatever you like. But if you insist on calling it 'rioting' then you lose credibility with me. Which I'm sure you don't give a shit about anyway so have at it partisan guy.

Okay. I can call it something else. How about this. A bunch of nasty, ill-mannered, arrogant pusillanimous pissant prarie punks who think they don't have to answer to anyone but their union bosses and could care less about REAL working families who they insult every time they call themselves "The Working People" without including those who pay for their wages and benefits.

Nothing "partisan" about that statement. it's just good ole common sense Americanism.

Yeah, nothing partisan at all.

Show us what part of my statement is partisan.

 

[manifold]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare? Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

Yes, less crime improves the general welfare which is why the Founders, almost to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a virtuous and morally centered people.

And yes, home ownership encourages stable families, more peaceful and crime free neighborhoods, as does the presence of churches, synagogues, and charitable organizations (which generally produces fewer beggars on the street), and also almost always produces more prosperity which is why I, as an advocate of a true flat tax across the boad, will hope that first home mortgage interest and charitable donations will continue to be deductible.

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.

 

[manifold]

Okay. I can call it something else. How about this. A bunch of nasty, ill-mannered, arrogant pusillanimous pissant prarie punks who think they don't have to answer to anyone but their union bosses and could care less about REAL working families who they insult every time they call themselves "The Working People" without including those who pay for their wages and benefits.

Nothing "partisan" about that statement. it's just good ole common sense Americanism.

Yeah, nothing partisan at all.

Show us what part of my statement is partisan.

This part...

Okay. I can call it something else. How about this. A bunch of nasty, ill-mannered, arrogant pusillanimous pissant prarie punks who think they don't have to answer to anyone but their union bosses and could care less about REAL working families who they insult every time they call themselves "The Working People" without including those who pay for their wages and benefits.

 

[Ravi]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare? Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

Yep...and that's what I basically said many pages ago on this thread.

 

[Jack Fate]

Yeah, nothing partisan at all.

Show us what part of my statement is partisan.

This part...

Okay. I can call it something else. How about this. A bunch of nasty, ill-mannered, arrogant pusillanimous pissant prarie punks who think they don't have to answer to anyone but their union bosses and could care less about REAL working families who they insult every time they call themselves "The Working People" without including those who pay for their wages and benefits.

You still have not explained to us how my opinion is "partisan". I am speaking about "working families". Your side is the "partisan" side. When your side refers to "working families", you mean union workers who contribute to demorat coffers.

When I say "working people", I mean everyone who works for a living and pays taxes, not a loyalist to a political party.

You, my friend, are the partisan here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare? Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

Yes, less crime improves the general welfare which is why the Founders, almost to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a virtuous and morally centered people.

And yes, home ownership encourages stable families, more peaceful and crime free neighborhoods, as does the presence of churches, synagogues, and charitable organizations (which generally produces fewer beggars on the street), and also almost always produces more prosperity which is why I, as an advocate of a true flat tax across the boad, will hope that first home mortgage interest and charitable donations will continue to be deductible.

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.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm not convinced any such morphing has necessarily taken place.

Denying the meaning of words does not make them mean whatever you want them to.

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

nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Denying the meaning of words does not make them mean whatever you want them to.

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

nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power

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.

 

[BenNatuf]

Does having less crime improve the general welfare?

Are there any federal statutes against robbery of a MA resident by a person in MA? Crime in general is a state issue, so should alleviating the causes of it be.

Does having more homeowners improve the general welfare?

Not if your not one of them

Yes, according to the absolutist arguments posted so far, the extra interest deduction amounts to "providing for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States"

When have you ever seen me support any part of the tax code? Of course this begs the question, how does the government not taking someones money from them equate to the federal government giving money to them? Of course it doesn't... but thats another subject.

Does having fewer beggers in the streets improve the general welfare?

No, it does help the Welfare of beggers though.

 

[manifold]

Yes, less crime improves the general welfare which is why the Founders, almost to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a virtuous and morally centered people.

And yes, home ownership encourages stable families, more peaceful and crime free neighborhoods, as does the presence of churches, synagogues, and charitable organizations (which generally produces fewer beggars on the street), and also almost always produces more prosperity which is why I, as an advocate of a true flat tax across the boad, will hope that first home mortgage interest and charitable donations will continue to be deductible.

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?

 

[manifold]

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

 

[kaz]

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?