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

[MACAULAY]

I like the question propounded by the O.P. Haven't read other responses.

They put "Provide for the Common Defense" first---knowing it had to come first, else there can be no welfare to provide.

I expect the Founders meant for it to be such Welfare as the country could reasonably afford--growing as the country got richer, and that the people would decide what they could afford---at which they refused to pay any more taxes.

That point has long ago been reached, but not before a class was created which relies exclusive and continuously on the government---something the Founders certainly did not intend. Surely they meant for people to be Self-Reliant---unless kept from being so by death or disease and such.

That's when we begin to produce cowards for politicians---who were scared to raise taxes but also scared to say no to those used to living on the Federal Plantation---generation after generation.

And that's when they took the coward's way out and started borrowing money. Now at 21 Tril.

No way--providing for the General Welfare was ever intended to go nearly that far by any sane person who is not at a damn coward---which Washington today is unfortunately filled up with.

Trump said cut every Federal Bureaucracy by 5% this year. I say cut it every year that much until the budget is balanced---lets get a bunch of lazy-assed Federal Employees off the government tit. And, lets make Welfare recipients who can work--actually WORK.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Yes; keep on lying & making up stupid shit.

No wonder you are a Trump supporter.

dude, you have every opportunity to clear it up, is the individual what you meant or not?

caddo kid says:
“I can’t give my own opinion but it’s the same as that guys.”

I offered my opinion in post #117.

No one else here posted the same opinion.

Go ahead; keep lying & making up shit.

Haha...opinions never read like this:
“My opinion is whatever Congress decides it is.”
Listen to that and think once bud...COME ON MAN!

IF YOU have a problem with anything, then that is YOUR problem; not my problem.


For reference, here is what I stated:
as mentioned within The Preamble it means nothing; it is just some fancy wording that means jack.

as mentioned in the Tax & Spending Clause, there has been considerable debate. Considering that Congress creates budgets from the TAX receipts & is in charge of spending, in theory it can mean anything Congress agrees to that Congress agrees that it means.

Have a problem with that? Not my problem.

Me:
“Hey Caddo what do YOU think about Mexican food.”
Caddo:
“My wife likes Mexican food.”
I can’t make this shit up.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

One has to consider where the phrase appears

.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Meaning and application
The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[3] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[4] except as regards frivolous litigation.[5]

The second occurance is this:

Article I, 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;

The explanation for this can be found @ Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia

The first has no legal authority and the second has been open to debate for more than 200 years.

Both terms promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare but not the common defense.

 

[danielpalos]

So far we’ve learned that Daniel thinks “general welfare” should mean we can all own Ferrari’s and eat like kings by staying at home and smoking weed while others bust their ass for us.

I say it would fall within constitutional guidelines if we offered welfare seeking lowlifes a taxpayer bought tent, fishing pole and bus ride to a resource rich forest. Prove me wrong please.

so far all we have learned from the right wing is that Only the general badfare qualifies as the general welfare.

and from you, the general lazyfare and general stealfare qualifies as the general welfare, as well as anything the all-powerful and unchallenged legislature can imagine.

.

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

My opinion is framed not by the differences of the founders, nor latter Pols or justices of the supreme court and not by the Federalist Society***.

The first notation of the general Welfare occurs in the Preamble to COTUS, a paragraph that seems to me to be a vision and/or a mission statement left to their posterity.

*** Federalist Society - Wikipedia

The genius of COTUS is in ambiguity, which allows the reader to understand the text in terms of their time in history, not the end of the 18th Century when written.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

That was my point earlier that you shat on because you are incapable of proper reasoning.

If Congress in its shitty "wisdom" decides that killing off half the population promotes general welfare, Congress has that power, right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The genius of COTUS is in ambiguity, which allows the reader to understand the text in terms of their time in history, not the end of the 18th Century when written.

That's the problem. You see ambiguity when there is none.

The Constitution was designed to be static and immovable EXCEPT by amendment. YOU don't like the amendment process because you can't get your bullshit commie agenda implemented.

Anyone who says that the constitution can be changed by a mere change in interpretation is an enemy to the United States and should be treated as such, but it will not happen.

For this and other reasons, I do not want to share a country with the likes of you. I want Texas Independence.

.

 

[danielpalos]

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

That was my point earlier that you shat on because you are incapable of proper reasoning.

If Congress in its shitty "wisdom" decides that killing off half the population promotes general welfare, Congress has that power, right?

lol. there is no power to provide for the general badfare only the general welfare; the right wing, Never gets it.

 

[jc456]

So far we’ve learned that Daniel thinks “general welfare” should mean we can all own Ferrari’s and eat like kings by staying at home and smoking weed while others bust their ass for us.

I say it would fall within constitutional guidelines if we offered welfare seeking lowlifes a taxpayer bought tent, fishing pole and bus ride to a resource rich forest. Prove me wrong please.

so far all we have learned from the right wing is that Only the general badfare qualifies as the general welfare.

and from you, the general lazyfare and general stealfare qualifies as the general welfare, as well as anything the all-powerful and unchallenged legislature can imagine.

.

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

more pig latin. thanks I wondered what happened to it.

 

[g5000]

If I am a money lender, do I benefit if house prices are higher than they should be?

Yup! The more money I loan, the more interest I collect on that money.

If I am a real estate broker, do I benefit if house prices are higher than they should be?

Yup! My commission is directly tied to the amount the house sells for. Higher home prices = higher commissions.

What if I am a realtor?

Yup! Same deal. Higher home prices = higher commissions.

Whose pocket is all this extra money coming from?

The sucker buying a house and borrowing money to get it, that's who.



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...erest-Deduction-Affect-the-Housing-Market.pdf

One widely cited 1996 study by Dennis Capozza, Richard Green, and Patric Hendershott estimated that eliminating the mortgage interest and property tax deductions would reduce housing prices in the short term by an average of 13 percent nationwide, with regional changes ranging from 8 to 27 percent.

Look how much money these profiteers pour into our incumbent politicians' pockets to keep this rigged game going:

What on Earth is your point?

I am answering a question which was asked of me. All caught up?

 

[jc456]

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

That was my point earlier that you shat on because you are incapable of proper reasoning.

If Congress in its shitty "wisdom" decides that killing off half the population promotes general welfare, Congress has that power, right?

lol. there is no power to provide for the general badfare only the general welfare; the right wing, Never gets it.

well we know you have no idea what you're talking about, you have pigs walking around and you're talken to em.

 

[g5000]

I support the Fair Tax, with no exemptions. Taxes on consumption are superior to taxes on production.

What you don't get is that it doesn't matter which tax structure we have if tax expenditures are allowed to exist. You have been misled into believing the flat INCOME tax has some magical quality which will prevent corruptible loopholes and carve-outs for special interests.

I’m thinking you’re putting words in my mouth.
I’m simply calling you out on your displeasure with “tax expenditures”...I’ll venture a guess and bet you don’t personally benefit from said expenditures.
What I’ve found is those who bitch about tax expenditures simply use that as the ‘smart guys’ angle on suggesting the treasury is underfunded by America’s most productive whom pays 87% of all collected income tax. An underfunded treasury equals less free shit for lowlifes...you hate that.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect your sneaky angle as it illustrates a level of shame in your desire for free shit.
See, the danielpalos of the world are shameless as all hell, they’ll straight up tell us they deserve free shit because they breathe oxygen on American soil. Again, good job, stay sneaky, stay embarrassed.

I use as many deductions, credits, and exemptions on my taxes as possible. I actually use quite a few. I would be stupid not to.

So your assumption is wrong.

But what you don't realize is that tax expenditures are the biggest "free shit" in the history of the world. They are stolen from the pockets of every taxpayer, including yourself!

Even worse, they cause prices for some things to be higher than they should be. For instance, the mortgage interest deduction causes house prices to be 27 percent higher.

So you think you are getting a good deal when you deduct your mortgage interest when in fact you are paying a higher tax rate and more for your house. You are being robbed.

Now ask yourself, who benefits from higher house prices?

There's more then one beneficiary.

Answer that question, and you will begin to understand how tax expenditures cause wealth to be redistributed UP the food chain.

Still off topic...
Again, you do a fine job of disguising your motives...however, anybody sane sees right past your bullshit. You see, everybody plays by the same rules and files taxes using the same tax code and guidelines so your cries of unfairness can’t be taken seriously by anyone paying attention. You always close out by unveiling of your true motive...I’ll dumb it down for the dumb here.
“Tax expenditures suck because only the productive, deserving people of society are able to capitalize on them.”
Trust me, I get it...you aren’t the first or last to play this lame ass tune...the bottom line is your type hate it win winners win and losers lose.
Your semi intelligent method / angle of begging for free shit is played out here bud. You’ve been exposed...you’re simply a smarter more calculated danielpalos

We have an insane system where entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes. This is a system where the government interferes in every commercial market on a MASSIVE scale.

You can't possibly call yourself a conservative and defend this bullshit.

This is a core conservative principle, dipshit.

I used to say you tards are "so far off the reservation...", but then I realized a while back you have never been ON the reservation.

It's not your fault, though. You were raised on pseudocon propaganda, and have too weak a mind to see how you are being manipulated. You were never allowed to grow intellectually. Your masters depend on you being stupid cows, and they work very hard to keep you that way so that you not only tolerate being robbed, you vigorously defend your robbers.

Here’s the strange thing about all this...everyone I know that has made good decisions, got an education, worked hard, stayed ambitious never bitches about “the system”....while lowlifes that can’t get out of their own way do nothing but tell us how “the system” holds them back. Weird huh?

I hear nothing but whining about "the system" from you pseudocons. It's non-stop. This topic was started to whine about the system.

Holy shit!

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[g5000]

If I am a money lender, do I benefit if house prices are higher than they should be?

Yup! The more money I loan, the more interest I collect on that money.

If I am a real estate broker, do I benefit if house prices are higher than they should be?

Yup! My commission is directly tied to the amount the house sells for. Higher home prices = higher commissions.

What if I am a realtor?

Yup! Same deal. Higher home prices = higher commissions.

Whose pocket is all this extra money coming from?

The sucker buying a house and borrowing money to get it, that's who.



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...erest-Deduction-Affect-the-Housing-Market.pdf

One widely cited 1996 study by Dennis Capozza, Richard Green, and Patric Hendershott estimated that eliminating the mortgage interest and property tax deductions would reduce housing prices in the short term by an average of 13 percent nationwide, with regional changes ranging from 8 to 27 percent.

Look how much money these profiteers pour into our incumbent politicians' pockets to keep this rigged game going:

There you have it folks...homeowners are “suckers”...meanwhile home ownership remains a fundamental ‘big boy’ thing to achieve in America and homeowners in the U.S. accumulate personal wealth through real estate.
To close, never accept any form of life coaching from the guy with neck tattoos, wearing a Metallica Master Of Puppets concert shirt and living in moms converted garage.

Homeowners are being ripped off, dumbass. Because the federal government is interfering in the market to redistribute the wealth of homeowners up the food chain.

How much more do you need this dumbed down for you? I can only do so much.

 

[eagle1462010]

The States were supposed to deal with the matters of what is best for them locally.............Not the Fed...

Mass warnings from the founders on giving too much power to the Federal Gov't........which is exactly why they limited their powers...................

The General Welfare issue give politicians to throw tax payer money at anything they please.......and they have abused it to hell and back...........

 

[danielpalos]

So far we’ve learned that Daniel thinks “general welfare” should mean we can all own Ferrari’s and eat like kings by staying at home and smoking weed while others bust their ass for us.

I say it would fall within constitutional guidelines if we offered welfare seeking lowlifes a taxpayer bought tent, fishing pole and bus ride to a resource rich forest. Prove me wrong please.

so far all we have learned from the right wing is that Only the general badfare qualifies as the general welfare.

and from you, the general lazyfare and general stealfare qualifies as the general welfare, as well as anything the all-powerful and unchallenged legislature can imagine.

.

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

more pig latin. thanks I wondered what happened to it.

what part don't you understand? why claim any authority on what could happen to our economy if you refuse to establish Any credibility.

 

[g5000]

[

Thomas Paine advocated a national basic income and an old age government pension. So he clearly did not believe these violated the Constitution.

Paine was there from the beginning. He was an authority on the subject of "general welfare". You are just some hack.

You think just pointing at the Constitution means something. It's just a meaningless throwaway gesture. You can't argue an actual point.

Paine argues for those things but didn’t get them. The US Constitution is the law of the land. Just because it has been ignored and abused for 150 years doesn’t mean it isn’t still the only legitimate standard for Federal powers.

Paine argued for those things and didn't get them. But you miss the point. He clearly felt what he advocated (basic income, government retirement pension) were within constitutional bounds.

That answers the question asked in the topic title.

Paine did not live to see his government pension system, but it did happen. And it is constitutional.

 

[jc456]

So far we’ve learned that Daniel thinks “general welfare” should mean we can all own Ferrari’s and eat like kings by staying at home and smoking weed while others bust their ass for us.

I say it would fall within constitutional guidelines if we offered welfare seeking lowlifes a taxpayer bought tent, fishing pole and bus ride to a resource rich forest. Prove me wrong please.

so far all we have learned from the right wing is that Only the general badfare qualifies as the general welfare.

and from you, the general lazyfare and general stealfare qualifies as the general welfare, as well as anything the all-powerful and unchallenged legislature can imagine.

.

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

more pig latin. thanks I wondered what happened to it.

what part don't you understand? why claim any authority on what could happen to our economy if you refuse to establish Any credibility.

you talking stupid doesn't justify jumping into a debate unless you debate in english.

 

[danielpalos]

if it promotes the general welfare; it works. besides, unemployment compensation has already proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

That was my point earlier that you shat on because you are incapable of proper reasoning.

If Congress in its shitty "wisdom" decides that killing off half the population promotes general welfare, Congress has that power, right?

lol. there is no power to provide for the general badfare only the general welfare; the right wing, Never gets it.

well we know you have no idea what you're talking about, you have pigs walking around and you're talken to em.

the pigs don't get it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Great question!

I think it refers to the population in general, so not individual entitlement programs, but rather the facilitation of infrastructure, protection of natural resources (air quality, water resources, etc). Perhaps to provide aide to areas and populations within our borders when disasters strike.