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.
Equal as a person, unequal when you consider burden.
I agree. Those paying a higher share of the federal income tax revenue than their share of the income are unfairly burdened to the benefit of everyone else. That needs to stop NOW.
What if the power shifts the other way and those on the receiving end have to start paying? Would you still be in favor of it?
This is the problem with promoting power to a given side at the sake of the individuals liberty. If we promote liberty, there is no fear. At the height of such focus of protection, only the irresponsible suffer. Though not for long, a system of responsibility has an uncanny knack of teaching survival.
The fear is that of those beliefs that ignore such concepts and advocate a "condition" of principals to the serving of a given collective (be it left ideology or right) will win. As I said, nobody loses when liberty is the goal, but everyone loses "eventually" when liberty is disregarded.
Please show us, in our nations founding documents, the phrase, statement, clause, paragraph, or amendment that calls for the state to provide to any church, charity or private individual, "supplemental aid as needed."
You won't find it, these idealist make up as they will. They are revisionist of reality and history. Their only goal is to require submission to to their ideology. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder are the tools they use to establish such and because they so fervently believe in their ideology, all forms are acceptable to achieve their goal.
Mankind has seen this throughout history, we repeat such transgressions as if we were a phonograph with a needle stuck.
Though the many repeats we have had, and continue to have, I can only mourn at the fact that man deserves such.
Please show us, in our nations founding documents, the phrase, statement, clause, paragraph, or amendment that calls for the state to provide to any church, charity or private individual, "supplemental aid as needed."
Among the Constitution's ennumerated powers is the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana Territory, fund the Lewis & Clark expedition, and support Catholic missionaries to the Indians. It should be good enough for you.
Now it's your turn. Please show me the phrase, statement, clause, paragraph, or amendment that forbids the the state to provide "supplemental aid as needed."
There isn't any.
Even if you take the extremist, non-historical, fanatical libertarian position that the U.S. Congress has no authority to provide financial assistance to its citizens, it's impossible to argue that the Constitution forbids the states from doing this. The states may do whatever they like.
Among the Constitution's ennumerated powers is the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfareof the United States".
Yes, the general welfare of the COUNTRY, not of its individual citizens. Note how the military does not defend individuals from mugging, car theft, home robbery, etc.
Among the Constitution's ennumerated powers is the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana Territory, fund the Lewis & Clark expedition, and support Catholic missionaries to the Indians. It should be good enough for you.
Now it's your turn. Please show me the phrase, statement, clause, paragraph, or amendment that forbids the the state to provide "supplemental aid as needed."
There isn't any.
Well, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the general welfare clause. It isn't a generalized statement, but rather a setting of a theme for the following powers of congress.
This is what James Madison said of the General Welfare clause in the Federalist papers #41.
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
Effectively what he is saying is that, the opening line of article 1 section 8 is a qualifying statement for the proceeding powers. And that, there would be no point in enumerating the powers of Congress, if the powers of Congress were unlimited.
I agree. Those paying a higher share of the federal income tax revenue than their share of the income are unfairly burdened to the benefit of everyone else. That needs to stop NOW.
No, we cannot agree. I know what it like to make $35K and what it is like to make over $200K. That experience is enough for me to extrapolate and compare $25K to $2.5 million.
Yes, the general welfare of the COUNTRY, not of its individual citizens.
Sometimes, what's good for the part is good for the whole.
In any case, the point I am trying to make has nothing to do with the Constitution. I'm making a philosophical point about the legitimate role of government as government, apart from the specifics of our own dysfunctional political system.
The redistribution of wealth is not "theft" unless it's excessive or abusive. Government has legitimate authority to tax and spend for the common good. Providing assistance to the poor is essential for the common good. Civilized men may certainly debate about the details of the system, the effectiveness of programs, the appropriate levels of taxation, etc. - but the claim that "taxation/redistribution is theft" is barbarism, plain and simple.
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.
You said you didn't want anyone to be unfairly burdened. Having to pay a larger share of the federal income tax than one's share of the income is an unequal burden. You're a hypocrite.
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.
