Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:03 AM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,264,910 times
Reputation: 3229

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Hamilton would probably be rolling in his grave to see a black man and a woman as two of the top contenders for President of the United States. The constitution wasn't written to make the government conform to the founder's 18th-century worldview, it was written to provide a framework for government, which he describes in his writings and which has been gradually defined by judicial review (which Hamilton supported) to fit the changing societal mores, values, and needs of our now-21st century nation.
We'll agree to disagree.

I think comparing racism and sexism to what amounts as a complete conversion of economic philosophy (using tax money as welfare INCLUDING government bailouts of corporations) is comparing apples to watermelons here....

They could have just as easily re-distributed wealth to the poor back in those days and there were plenty of rich men that were willing and did do just that through private means. But there was NEVER any provision nor would there have been to use public moneys collected as taxes to basically pay another for being poor.....

Taxing is one issue that we've all grown to except. It's how that money is used that has become unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury View Post
We'll agree to disagree.

I think comparing racism and sexism to what amounts as a complete conversion of economic philosophy (using tax money as welfare INCLUDING government bailouts of corporations) is comparing apples to watermelons here....

They could have just as easily re-distributed wealth to the poor back in those days and there were plenty of rich men that were willing and did do just that through private means. But there was NEVER any provision nor would there have been to use public moneys collected as taxes to basically pay another for being poor.....

Taxing is one issue that we've all grown to except. It's how that money is used that has become unconstitutional.
I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, I'm just pointing out that there IS a legitimate argument and historical basis for the constitutionality of the social spending that the federal government currently performs, whether you agree with that argument or not. The basis of the debate started shortly after the nation was created, has continued to this day, and will continue into the future, although the courts have aligned with one side rather than the other. Want to change it? Vote for Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul, wouldn't vote for him myself but he wants what you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 10:00 PM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,562 posts, read 21,335,031 times
Reputation: 10053
the term general welfare doesn't mean a welfare state.Welfare is to be interpreted as liberty being the good of the people.

Im not against helping people who are down and out,but a welfare state hardly ever brings people out of being poor,it only keeps them at a meger level of existance,and many who are dependant on welfare are of the thought this is all they will ever be and don't try to rise above.And government politicians only make this thought even more conditioned and keep them there,and scare them with the thought of loosing welfare.In a sense the politicians who promote a welfare state are drug pushers to citizens who are dependant on welfare who are addicted to it and don't see pass it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,379,420 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Many would hold that it's in "the best interest of the country" to maintain a social safety net... Hamilton was opposed to a lot of things, probably including the abolition of slavery or having an elected Senate, but times change, and his interpretation of the Constitution was more conducive to this than Jefferson's or Madison's. He makes it pretty clear in The Federalist Papers that he considers federal taxing/spending to be constitutional in "a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition." What you're trying to do is speculate and define.
The Federalist Papers were written before the 10th Amendment was ratified. However, I agree in principle that a "social safety net" is necessary, providing it is the states (who actually have the constitutional power) that establish that "social safety net." My arguement is that the federal government (Congress specifically) does not have the constitutional authority to establish such a "social safety net".

The same is also true when it concerns education. Since that power was not delegated to Congress or the federal government by the US Constitution, nor prohibited by that document to the states, then under the 10th Amendment the power to regulate education belongs exclusively to the states and/or the people.

For too long we have allowed Congress to get away to usurping powers that were given to the states. Congress ignores the primary purpose of the US Constitution which is suppose to limit their powers. Instead of being a country of free people, we've become a nation utterly dependent upon the federal government which we have mistakingly bestowed with unlimited, unrestricted powers to do whatever they please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 10:52 PM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,562 posts, read 21,335,031 times
Reputation: 10053
A man digs a hole,gets paid $10 for it.Along comes government,takes $3 from his $10,mismanages $2 of that $3 and gives $1 to someone on welfare,of course that $1 will never get the person on welfare out of poverty but hey it's free money!The goverment does dictate to the person on welfare what they can do with that $1 however....it's free money you just don't have freedom....

Of course since government mismanaged the $2 they now demand the man give $4 of his $10,now what happens when there aren't enough people left digging holes?At what point does the guy say "why should I even friggin bother busting my a** digging holes?"

People should help others but by them doing it by choice,not because their work is pilaged and redistributed,which by leaving it up to government ultimately the only one who has power or freedom to do what they want with money is politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
The Federalist Papers were written before the 10th Amendment was ratified. However, I agree in principle that a "social safety net" is necessary, providing it is the states (who actually have the constitutional power) that establish that "social safety net." My arguement is that the federal government (Congress specifically) does not have the constitutional authority to establish such a "social safety net".

The same is also true when it concerns education. Since that power was not delegated to Congress or the federal government by the US Constitution, nor prohibited by that document to the states, then under the 10th Amendment the power to regulate education belongs exclusively to the states and/or the people.

For too long we have allowed Congress to get away to usurping powers that were given to the states. Congress ignores the primary purpose of the US Constitution which is suppose to limit their powers. Instead of being a country of free people, we've become a nation utterly dependent upon the federal government which we have mistakingly bestowed with unlimited, unrestricted powers to do whatever they please.
I'm sort of scared of what would happen to my home state if you left it up to impoverished/sales tax dependent Alabama and Mississippi to provide their own "social safety nets..."

DUH DUH DUH DOOOOOOOOOOOH....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,714 posts, read 8,446,249 times
Reputation: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Well for what it is worth and as much as I don't care for taxes, I would certainly prefer tax and spend to borrow and spend if for not other reason than my obligation to future generations of my family.

Well I think it rather obvious that I am not suggesting an anarchist state, as it is my opinion that man being the social animal, still requires communal interaction, if for no other reason than because it has been beneficial to his survival in the past. However, I also don't think we are capable of a purely communal system as evident from the lack of advanced communal systems of government like the former Soviet Union or China. People seem to gravitate towards this happy medium of a more socialist order that is a combination of individual efforts and communal societal needs.

In the case of the United States, we started out with a rather humble set of rules defining a complex mechanism of governing in order to prevent bureaucracy from collapsing the system under the weight of too much government. It seemed to work quite well for us for quite some time, but I think it is getting too top heavy.

For shoots and ladders I will use the tax system as an example. Before 1913 we didn't even need income taxes, but as social programs have expanded and we have spread our tentacles further around the globe, the need for taxes has increased. We arrive today at a tax code that cost inordinate amounts of money, time, and manpower just to implement the oversight. Where is the happy medium between what the society desires and the individual needs and how much expense is it worth to try and satisfy both at the same time?

My concerns are that government simply can't provide for the needs of all the citizenries want, but in trying to do so it would collapse under the expense.

Is there something specific, rather than ongoing vagueness, that your are concerned about? Your post looks to me like a series of political cliches.

What about the efficiency of government operations?
What about the processes of government purchasing?
What about the distribution of taxes received versus benefits disbursed?
What about trends in the demographic distribution of wealth and income? How are these changing recently?
What about out-of-control illegal immigration and its root causes?
What about areas of law and regulation that have been implemented with insufficient budget for enforcement efforts?
Etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 03:08 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,406,452 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury View Post
Honestly I'd like to do a little more research on Hamilton before I comment definitively on his full implications here, but I sincerely doubt he was or would agree with wealth redistribution to poorer individuals as falling under the "General Welfare" clause, but I'll defer that argument for another time.
It is the function of government -- in pursuit of such as the common defense and the general welfare -- to redistribute wealth. The only government that does not do it is that which taxes individuals and then returns these same monies to them once again. An exercise with less purpose can hardly be imagined. But if a government maintains an army, it takes from you and gives to soldiers. If it conducts diplomacy, it takes from you and gives to diplomats. If it maintains a national park, it takes from you and gives to park workers. If it supports a railroad, or a highway system, or maintains navigable waterways...if it supports agricultural, health, and other basic research...if it produces economic numbers, enumerates a census, or publishes regular reports of its own undertakings...in all these things it takes from you and gives to others while taking from others and giving to you. Do not forget that every dollar taxed is spent...that every one taken here is returned there. To contest the legitimacy of redistribution is folly, for it is to argue for the benefit of no government at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 03:40 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,406,452 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury View Post
Really?? Who expected this?? (seriously never read that anywhere, but would like to).
Since you are presently enamored of Mr. Jefferson (and since his preserved writings are voluminous) here are a few of his observations...

Though we may say with confidence, that the worst of the American constitutions is better than the best which ever existed before in any other country, and that they are wonderfully perfect for a first essay, yet every human essay must have defects. It will remain, therefore, to those now coming on the stage of public affairs, to perfect what has been so well begun by those going off it.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself.

Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accomodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times.

Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself...


If you can square all of this and much more with the arguments we hear today trumpeted under the banners of such as strict constructionism and original intent, then you are either a better or more deceitful man than I.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 03:52 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,406,452 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury View Post
Taxes were NEVER meant as a means of redistributing wealth in this country and you'd be hard pressed to find ANY founder of this country that would concede that.
One of the faults of the founders lies in their having at times declined to record for our benefit what to them in their times seemed too obvious to need recording. One such, as obvious however today as it was then, is that a redistribution of wealth is the sole purpose of taxation. Governments exist to promote that which is beneficial to society and to restrain that which is not. Such activity is inseparable from redistribution of wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top