Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before anyone else beats me to it you are all aware that Thomas Sowell is an ECONOMIST, with NO educational background in social science, sociology or even minority studies?
Other than his skin color, he has no source for any of his claims, except the economic arguments he gives.
Its too bad. He is the right wing equivalent to the lefts Micheal Moore. A guy whos sole qualifier for most of his arguments are simply that hes making them. All the while, making money selling to the hard liners who will accept anything he says as gospel simply because hes saying it.
Sowell is a brilliant marketer. He knows how to make money. But he has NO background or education in social policy, public administration, or cross cultural studies. What he does have is a black face and the intelligence to know that if he says something about blacks that feeds into what certain non-blacks stereotypes are, there is a market out there that will buy and latch on to his every word, as you have just done in this very thread little acorn. Nevermind whether what he says is true, or even sourceable, or if hes refutable in what hes talking about.
Mr Sowell knows about as much about minority affairs in america as I do about native american textiles. Sure, I know something, but its not my background.
Before anyone else beats me to it you are all aware that Thomas Sowell is an ECONOMIST, with NO educational background in social science, sociology or even minority studies?
Other than his skin color, he has no source for any of his claims, except the economic arguments he gives.
Its too bad. He is the right wing equivalent to the lefts Micheal Moore. A guy whos sole qualifier for most of his arguments are simply that hes making them. All the while, making money selling to the hard liners who will accept anything he says as gospel simply because hes saying it.
Sowell is a brilliant marketer. He knows how to make money. But he has NO background or education in social policy, public administration, or cross cultural studies. What he does have is a black face and the intelligence to know that if he says something about blacks that feeds into what certain non-blacks stereotypes are, there is a market out there that will buy and latch on to his every word, as you have just done in this very thread little acorn. Nevermind whether what he says is true, or even sourceable, or if hes refutable in what hes talking about.
Mr Sowell knows about as much about minority affairs in america as I do about native american textiles. Sure, I know something, but its not my background.
In other words, you are unable to refute anything Sowell wrote in his article.
This is completely false. First of all, Hamilton was not talking about the Commerce Clause, but about the Spending Clause and the General Welfare Clause within it,
Oops, I screwed up again. I meant "Welfare Clause", not "Commerce Clause", as is clear from my previous posts. Mea Culpa! (applying brain-fart remover)
Quote:
and the ONLY reservation he saw on the powers of the national legislature was geographic
Hamilton did use the term "Local Welfare" to distinguish it from "General Welfare". But it's unlikely that he felt that a program that helped a few people in South Carolina and a few people in Maine, was to be permitted; while a program that helped only a few people in South Carolina alone was not.
Hamilton knew well that the term "General Welfare" in his day meant everyone. And when a program didn't help everyone, it was forbidden to the Fed govt (though states could exercise it if they wanted).
Quote:
Otherwise, Hamilton's view was so expansive as to go beyond the usual meaning of the word...
...the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.
-- Alexander Hamilton, December 1791
Nothing particularly expansive about that. Hamilton was trying to refute his main rival James Madison's view that the General Welfare Clause added NO POWERS WHATSOEVER to Congress that weren't already explicitly named in the other parts of the Constitution.
For example, if Congress were to find some way to improve the fertility of all land in every state of the union, Hamilton felt that the Welfare Clause allowed Congress to enact that program; while Madison felt that the Welfare Clause did not give Congress that power, since the power to improve land fertility was not explicitly named anywhere in the Constitution.
But even Hamilton was careful to acknowledge that programs that did not benefit everyone, were forbidden to Congress. See my reference in Post 16, which goes to the Supreme Court Case US v. Butler.
The phrase you bolded, was Hamilton saying that the phrase "General Welfare" was as all-inclusive as a phrase WITHIN THAT DEFINITION, and within what the Constitution actually intended, could be. He was saying that "helping everyone equally" was as far as he could go; where if he had said "helping everyone equally, or helping less inclusive groups, or helping isolated individuals", that would have been going too far and he did not support the latter.
In other words, you are unable to refute anything Sowell wrote in his article.
That's not surprising.
(yawn)
What? Did you even read the post?
By your own logic, a nutritionist with bachelors degree in food service has the same categorical qualifications to comment on rocket science or landscape architecture as a person with a Ph.D in Astro Physics or Engineering as long as they write a book in it, regardless of whether they have an educational background in it.
This is bush league debating. If you want a conservatives social arguments, Dick Cheney, or even George Bush Sr. Both actually have something of a refutable social background on the topic. Sowell was an economist, not a sociologist.
In other words, you are unable to refute anything Sowell wrote in his article.
That's not surprising.
(yawn)
And you, as usual, evaded responding to the points made in tindo80's post......like, for example, Sowell's "sole qualifier" is his black face.
You started this thread off with your statements about how intelligent you think Sowell is and therefore you think his opinion piece was spot-on brilliant. So, you introduced the topic of WHY Sowell should be taken seriously, yet you totally ignore any other opinion of why Sowell's opinions might be found to be less than brilliant by other people.
If you're so sleepy and bored (yawn) why do you even bother posting?
And you, as usual, evaded responding to the points made in tindo80's post......like, for example, Sowell's "sole qualifier" is his black face.
You started this thread off with your statements about how intelligent you think Sowell is and therefore you think his opinion piece was spot-on brilliant. So, you introduced the topic of WHY Sowell should be taken seriously, yet you totally ignore any other opinion of why Sowell's opinions might be found to be less than brilliant by other people.
If you're so sleepy and bored (yawn) why do you even bother posting?
I love reading that well liked and understood economist. I think he makes more sense most of the time than anyone else writing editorials. But then you knew that, didn't you?
Hamilton did use the term "Local Welfare" to distinguish it from "General Welfare".
In a merely geographic sense. None other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
But it's unlikely that he felt that a program that helped a few people in South Carolina and a few people in Maine, was to be permitted; while a program that helped only a few people in South Carolina alone was not.
It's unlikely that Hamilton would have considered groups of people at all, as he went to great pains to limit his meaning to one of geography. You are trying to craft an opinion for Hamilton by putting ideas in his head and words in his mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Hamilton knew well that the term "General Welfare" in his day meant everyone. And when a program didn't help everyone, it was forbidden to the Fed govt (though states could exercise it if they wanted).
Hamilton spelled out what he took General Welfare to mean in the words in the post above. Nowhere did he make any mention of anything approaching the sort of "forbidding" that you contemplate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Nothing particularly expansive about that.
When a man uses the words The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used, he is indeed being particularly expansive. Save for the geographic reservation, he is saying that there is no intent that could have been more expansive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Hamilton was trying to refute his main rival James Madison's view that the General Welfare Clause added NO POWERS WHATSOEVER to Congress that weren't already explicitly named in the other parts of the Constitution.
Madison felt that spending (the subject of the Spending Clause) could not be unlimited because the powers to put it to use were not unlimited. Hamilton felt that spending was (barely) limited and that therefore the power to put that spending to use existed in parallel. Such tension as existed between those views was laid to rest by Justice Story in 1833 and has reposed in peace ever since. Hamilton won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
But even Hamilton was careful to acknowledge that programs that did not benefit everyone, were forbidden to Congress. See my reference in Post 16, which goes to the Supreme Court Case US v. Butler.
There is nothing in Post-16 that goes to Butler, but here is a pertinent snippet from Justice Roberts' opinion in that case...
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.
Little enough support for your view there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
The phrase you bolded, was Hamilton saying that the phrase "General elfare" was as all-inclusive as a phrase WITHIN THAT DEFINITION, and within what the Constitution actually intended, could be. He was saying that "helping everyone equally" was as far as he could go; where if he had said "helping everyone equally, or helping less inclusive groups, or helping isolated individuals", that would have been going too far and he did not support the latter.
You again fabricate words and put them into people's mouths. No specific meaning of "general welfare" that even approximates yours has ever been established or relied upon, nor is a suggestion for such in any way revealed by Hamilton's words. The Supreme Court in Butler declined to imagine what the term might mean, but a year later in Helvering v Davis, the Court conceded the limit to general or national concerns, but left it plainly in the hands of Congress to determine what might and might not fit within that limit. There has not been any case decided on the basis of an act's NOT so fitting within the limit.
I love reading that well liked and understood economist. I think he makes more sense most of the time than anyone else writing editorials. But then you knew that, didn't you?
See, you grasp that his writings are editorials, mere opinion peices not to be cited.
If you agree with the guy, more power to you. Nothing wrong with that. But there is a big problem when people try to pass opinion off as academia, or when people in one field attempt to usurp the credentials of another from which they have no actual link.
Thomas Sowell is one of the most intelligent, perceptive writers I have ever read. His ability to get to the nub of the matter and express it plainly and straightforwardly, is without peer.
And here he does a better job of pointing out the overall affect of the Obama administration on this country, than any other author to date.
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
Yes, things were hunky-dory before Obama took office. The good old days of a White House gone rogue, oh wait...that's Sarah Palin's catch phrase now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama Dismantling America By Dr. Thomas Sowell (African-American)
