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.
Why is it socialist welfare when the poor are receiving the benefit and good capitalist policy when Wall Street investors get the money?
I’ll go for a flat tax if all income from all sources is counted and the lowest 85% of the income is deductible and untaxed. I merely propose to have the people that benefit most from the protection of government pay for it.
Actually, I've won this argument. You lost it when FDR threatened the Supreme Court to rule in his favor, and the spineless cowards copitulated to his coercion. Fascists not withstanding, it doesn't change the very simple fact that "the general welfare" is a purpose, not a delegated power. Since it isn't a delegated power Congress has no authority to spend a single penny on socialist programs. You may continue to spew Marxist propaganda, but that will not change reality.
Glitch, you have to understand that saganista doesn't care what the people that ACTUALLY WROTE AND FRAMED the Constitution's thoughts were on the matter. Only how activist judges later interpreted it....
I mean when looking to the purpose of a line in the Constitution we need to look to activist judges who believe that redistributing wealth via taxes falls under "General Welfare". Why listen to Jefferson or Madison who have quotes attributed to them in which they SPECIFICALLY state that this is not the purpose. Eh, but why let that get in the way, right???
Here's a very good article on this (broken link) that also specifically disputes the Constitutionality (is that even a word?? ) of the court decision that sag is citing.
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 10-16-2007 at 06:41 AM..
Glitch, you have to understand that saganista doesn't care what the people that ACTUALLY WROTE AND FRAMED the Constitution's thoughts were on the matter. Only how activist judges later interpreted it....
The people who actually wrote and framed the Constitution counseled and expected exactly that. Just as they claimed for their own generation the right to form a more perfect union, they saw that same right in every future generation. None of the founders professed any hope or desire to see his descendants trapped in a tyranny of their forefathers. Many expected that the Constitution would be periodically scrapped in its entirety and replaced with a new one. Wisely, we have come to recognize that the enumeration of the essentials of our form of governance together with the delineation of basic rights subsequently appended thereto are too valuable and too close to correct to undo in toto. We have therefore resorted to the process of jurisprudence as our means for essential modernization. After more than two centuries, you have apparently still not come to grips with this fact.
Glitch, you have to understand that saganista doesn't care what the people that ACTUALLY WROTE AND FRAMED the Constitution's thoughts were on the matter. Only how activist judges later interpreted it....
I mean when looking to the purpose of a line in the Constitution we need to look to activist judges who believe that redistributing wealth via taxes falls under "General Welfare". Why listen to Jefferson or Madison who have quotes attributed to them in which they SPECIFICALLY state that this is not the purpose. Eh, but why let that get in the way, right???
Here's a very good article on this that also specifically disputes the Constitutionality (is that even a word?? ) of the court decision that sag is citing.
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.
So... really, both of our sides are probably on solid constitutional ground, but Hamilton's side won out in the courts. If you don't like it then vote for a super-libertarian type president who'll put Jeffersonian judges in, or something.
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.
So... really, both of our sides are probably on solid constitutional ground, but Hamilton's side won out in the courts. If you don't like it then vote for a super-libertarian type president who'll put Jeffersonian judges in, or something.
Whoah doggie!!!! Let's put this in context as Hamilton was referring to the establishment of a National Bank here and such endeavors. Even Madison begrudgingly gave into that argument as he saw it necessary to prevent a crazy situation with states establishing banks simply because nothing was ever expressly stated in the Constitution about the Federal Government establishing a bank. Thus, it was in the best interest of the country for a National Bank to be chartered.
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.
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 people who actually wrote and framed the Constitution counseled and expected exactly that. Just as they claimed for their own generation the right to form a more perfect union, they saw that same right in every future generation. None of the founders professed any hope or desire to see his descendants trapped in a tyranny of their forefathers. Many expected that the Constitution would be periodically scrapped in its entirety and replaced with a new one. Wisely, we have come to recognize that the enumeration of the essentials of our form of governance together with the delineation of basic rights subsequently appended thereto are too valuable and too close to correct to undo in toto. We have therefore resorted to the process of jurisprudence as our means for essential modernization. After more than two centuries, you have apparently still not come to grips with this fact.
Really?? Who expected this?? (seriously never read that anywhere, but would like to).
Not necessarily "Wisely" at all. Appending was certainly a part of the original intent, but not to amend it against the original meaning of the document.
I can accept that FDR did what he had to do given the circumstances, but at some point some of the programs that bear his legacy should no longer be considered "For the general welfare"....
It'd be like Lincoln's suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus in 1861 in Maryland suddenly being used as precedent for the rest of our days IMO.
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.
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.
I believe we are both pretty certain however that Hamilton would be rolling in his grave to hear his words being used to defend the redistribution of federal tax money as welfare to the poor.
Really?? Who expected this?? (seriously never read that anywhere, but would like to).
Not necessarily "Wisely" at all. Appending was certainly a part of the original intent, but not to amend it against the original meaning of the document.
I can accept that FDR did what he had to do given the circumstances, but at some point some of the programs that bear his legacy should no longer be considered "For the general welfare"....
It'd be like Lincoln's suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus in 1861 in Maryland suddenly being used as precedent for the rest of our days IMO.
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.
You'd probably be hard pressed to find many founders of the country who didn't believe in white supremacy, wanted women to be able to vote, or considered Native Americans to be much more than "savages..." Society's changed a lot since then. Economics has advanced beyond the formulative days of Adam Smith and our conception of what's in the "General Welfare" has changed as well.
I believe we are both pretty certain however that Hamilton would be rolling in his grave to hear his words being used to defend the redistribution of federal tax money as welfare to the poor.
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.
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.
) of the court decision that sag is citing.
