Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
You think taking care of our vets is a "feel-good" thing? It is both morally and pragmatically the right thing to do. And if it is a government program then obviously the taxpayers all pitch in.
Vets volunteer. No vets=no freedom=no constitution=no federal government purview=no money or nice lifestyle for oz.
Luckily for the rest of us, the Supreme Courts have consistently taken the Hamiltonian interpretation that the Congress does indeed have the power to tax when it deems good for the general welfare of our citizens.
While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,595 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.596 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.
US Constitution Annotated - Spending for the General Welfare
|
In your 'outrage' you miss my point.
Providing the homeless with food and a home for free(for example) is a nice thing to do.
It was not however the 'job' of the federal gov't.
I am saddened that people like you seem to LOVE a government that gets to decide when and where its power ends.
Having lived in a socialist nation I can see where those who do not WANT to strive and succeed on their own may embrace it,especially if they benefit.
Sadly they like to make EVERYONE else pay for it.
Hopefully Paul will win and help put an end to this welfare mentality.