What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

[g5000]

If someone besides me would finally admit that tax expenditures are welfare spending, that would be awesome.

They add up to DOUBLE what is spent on traditional welfare programs, yet I never have once heard someone claiming to be a conservative on this forum express any outrage over them whatseover.

In fact, most pseudocons scream like welfare queens when you talk about abolishing them so we can all pay lower tax rates.

Disgusting lowlife pieces of shit always hate tax expenditures...Why? Because their negroes and wetbacks don't really benefit from them...They claim "we will all pay a lower tax rate" but what they really mean is "those wealthy bastards already paying my way will pay me even more"....Dude, stop with your not so cleverly disguised begging...Please just get your twisted shit right and get a fucking job already..DAMN!
And remember folks....the top 20% are already paying 87% of the collected tax.

See?

They scream like welfare queens. Tole ya!

haha...yep...."How dare those productive bastatrds paying my way want to keep more of what they EARN"

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

 

[rightwinger]

Congress represents We the People

Ok, so what?

For close to a hundred years, General Welfare has included helping to support our poorest citizens.

Slavery was legal in the US for close to hundred years as well. Just because something's been around for awhile doesn't mean it's right.

If you want to equate helping struggling Americans to slavery, you are welcome to it

Problem with Democrats is they don't want to help "Americans, .they want to help the whole world

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

 

[bendog]

I guess tax cuts don't have to costed as to deficit effect as spending does. …. but wait, tax cuts always pay for themselves and even "make" money. No one disputes this economic commandment.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress represents We the People

Ok, so what?

For close to a hundred years, General Welfare has included helping to support our poorest citizens.

Slavery was legal in the US for close to hundred years as well. Just because something's been around for awhile doesn't mean it's right.

If you want to equate helping struggling Americans to slavery, you are welcome to it

Problem with Democrats is they don't want to help "Americans, .they want to help the whole world

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Neither does deliberately antagonizing our "allies".

 

[rightwinger]

Congress represents We the People

Ok, so what?

For close to a hundred years, General Welfare has included helping to support our poorest citizens.

Slavery was legal in the US for close to hundred years as well. Just because something's been around for awhile doesn't mean it's right.

If you want to equate helping struggling Americans to slavery, you are welcome to it

Problem with Democrats is they don't want to help "Americans, .they want to help the whole world

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Neither does deliberately antagonizing our "allies".

America First equates to America Alone

 

[dblack]

I guess tax cuts don't have to costed as to deficit effect as spending does. …. but wait, tax cuts always pay for themselves and even "make" money. No one disputes this economic commandment.

Regardless, discriminatory taxation should be banned. This idea that the tax code should be used to manipulate society - to steer them toward targets the current regime favors, and away from behavior they don't like - is an abuse of the taxation power, an abuse of government.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok, so what?
Slavery was legal in the US for close to hundred years as well. Just because something's been around for awhile doesn't mean it's right.

If you want to equate helping struggling Americans to slavery, you are welcome to it

Problem with Democrats is they don't want to help "Americans, .they want to help the whole world

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Neither does deliberately antagonizing our "allies".

America First equates to America Alone

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause in particular.

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to equate helping struggling Americans to slavery, you are welcome to it

Problem with Democrats is they don't want to help "Americans, .they want to help the whole world

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Neither does deliberately antagonizing our "allies".

America First equates to America Alone

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause in particular.

WTF?

 

[danielpalos]

Problem with Democrats is they don't want to help "Americans, .they want to help the whole world

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Neither does deliberately antagonizing our "allies".

America First equates to America Alone

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause in particular.

WTF?

We should be promoting our mutual general welfare with our allies. We have a Commerce Clause.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Disgusting lowlife pieces of shit always hate tax expenditures...Why? Because their negroes and wetbacks don't really benefit from them...They claim "we will all pay a lower tax rate" but what they really mean is "those wealthy bastards already paying my way will pay me even more"....Dude, stop with your not so cleverly disguised begging...Please just get your twisted shit right and get a fucking job already..DAMN!
And remember folks....the top 20% are already paying 87% of the collected tax.

See?

They scream like welfare queens. Tole ya!

haha...yep...."How dare those productive bastatrds paying my way want to keep more of what they EARN"

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

 

[g5000]

See?

They scream like welfare queens. Tole ya!

haha...yep...."How dare those productive bastatrds paying my way want to keep more of what they EARN"

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

I'd prefer the Fair Tax. Consumption taxes are superior to taxes on production. And the Fair Tax mitigates the regressive nature of sales taxes with a one-size-fits-all prebate.

 

[g5000]

See?

They scream like welfare queens. Tole ya!

haha...yep...."How dare those productive bastatrds paying my way want to keep more of what they EARN"

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

Commie liberal pinko fag Thomas Jefferson disagrees with taxing lower income Americans, and he disagrees with a flat tax:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

 

[dblack]

See?

They scream like welfare queens. Tole ya!

haha...yep...."How dare those productive bastatrds paying my way want to keep more of what they EARN"

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

Republicans don't have the balls to do this. They like the welfare state every bit as much as Democrats.

 

[BrokeLoser]

haha...yep...."How dare those productive bastatrds paying my way want to keep more of what they EARN"

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

Commie liberal pinko fag Thomas Jefferson disagrees with taxing lower income Americans, and he disagrees with a flat tax:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

You and your people hate what was said and applicable in them there olden days..right?
Time for those taxpayer dependent wetbacks to put away that uncircumcised 3” anteater penis, put down the bong, the Modello, the carne asada, no more expensive pit bulls and Dodger apparel...Say hello to Top Ramen and paying your “fair share”...Ain’t that right g5000?

 

[dblack]

Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy with targeted tax breaks and penalties. And taxes shouldn't go down until we've balanced the budget. Intelligent conservatives understand this.

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

Commie liberal pinko fag Thomas Jefferson disagrees with taxing lower income Americans, and he disagrees with a flat tax:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

You and your people hate what was said and applicable in them there olden days..right?
Time for those taxpayer dependent wetbacks to put away that uncircumcised 3” anteater penis, put down the bong, the Modello, the carne asada, no more expensive pit bulls and Dodger apparel...Say hello to Top Ramen and paying your “fair share”...Ain’t that right g5000?

You're a class act, BL. And by 'class act', I mean an embarrassment.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You’re right, .GOV definitely should not pick winners and losers...So you’d agree that a flat tax which allows ALL to pay their ‘fair share’ makes perfect sense?
Taxes should definitely “go down” as often as possible and when they do .GOV should cut spending to align with tax revenues.
Good, real Americans know this.

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

Commie liberal pinko fag Thomas Jefferson disagrees with taxing lower income Americans, and he disagrees with a flat tax:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

You and your people hate what was said and applicable in them there olden days..right?
Time for those taxpayer dependent wetbacks to put away that uncircumcised 3” anteater penis, put down the bong, the Modello, the carne asada, no more expensive pit bulls and Dodger apparel...Say hello to Top Ramen and paying your “fair share”...Ain’t that right g5000?

You're a class act, BL. And by 'class act', I mean an embarrassment.

I always intend to embarrass you wetback lovers...you saying I’m successful?

 

[bendog]

I guess tax cuts don't have to costed as to deficit effect as spending does. …. but wait, tax cuts always pay for themselves and even "make" money. No one disputes this economic commandment.

Regardless, discriminatory taxation should be banned. This idea that the tax code should be used to manipulate society - to steer them toward targets the current regime favors, and away from behavior they don't like - is an abuse of the taxation power, an abuse of government.

I think toll roads and pay to play bridges were pretty common knowledge of the Founders. I personally believe the Founders were far too familiar, and scared of, quasi-governmental, global-trading-for-profit-entities like the East India Company and Hudson Bay Company to have EVER thought Exxon or Google should have free speech rights under the BoR. But should privately built infrastructure be taxed? I think the Founders would not approve But for better or worse, Corporations are people, so debating it is pointless.

Taxes on slaves were known, and the East India Company got the Bishops' tea with a monopoly and upon the backs of young "dusky" girls, so let's not assume there was some golden age.

The tax expenditure on home mortgages probably did increase the price per sq foot, but a 3000 sq foot has advantages over a 1500 one. But renters effectively subsidize owners, and that's not fair or even economically beneficial. HC insurance through tax expenditures can't be defended on the basis of providing the best care most cheaply.

But of course the Founders did not experience the progressive income tax, despite TJ's musings. Maybe "use" taxes like on booze and professionals like doctors are ok to finance specific govt programs like healthcare subsidies. But using the income tax to benefit specific sectors of the economy should either be avoided or forced to be made public.

 

[dblack]

It does not matter what kind of tax scheme we have so long as tax expenditures are allowed.

If you continue to allow the $1.4 TRILLION in annual tax expenditures, then the flat tax would have to be much, much higher to offset them.

That's how that shit works, dumbass.

Cool...a flat tax with no expenditures...let’s do this, it’s time we get your bottom feeding pet humans to pay their “fair share”.

Commie liberal pinko fag Thomas Jefferson disagrees with taxing lower income Americans, and he disagrees with a flat tax:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

You and your people hate what was said and applicable in them there olden days..right?
Time for those taxpayer dependent wetbacks to put away that uncircumcised 3” anteater penis, put down the bong, the Modello, the carne asada, no more expensive pit bulls and Dodger apparel...Say hello to Top Ramen and paying your “fair share”...Ain’t that right g5000?

You're a class act, BL. And by 'class act', I mean an embarrassment.

I always intend to embarrass you wetback lovers...you saying I’m successful?

Well, I meant an embarrassment to the human race. And yes, very successful. You're a disgrace. I'm sure this pleases you.

 

[protectionist]

Democrats recognize we operate on a global market requiring strong economic alliances

Me first does not cut it

Me first absolutely DOES cut it, and your denial of that, is why AMERICANS no longer support Democrats, and thus, they have to import foreigners to get VOTES.

"economic alliances" is not equivalent to the current process of anti-American remittance imperialism, practiced by Mexico, China, India, Guatemala, et al, who have long been abusing the USA.

 

[DOTR]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

I think the next phrase over explains everything...to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare.