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.
And one could be (would be) very easily wrong if he tried.
As I wrote years ago:
The "Welfare Clause"
There's a section of the Constitution, that mentions providing for the general welfare. It's popularly called (surprise!) the "Welfare Clause". And it's been used more than almost any other part of the Constitution, to try to justify unlimited expansion of the Federal government.
In full, that part of the Constitution says:
Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes, "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...."
It's difficult, and sometimes unwise, to take pieces out of context. And that's been done wrong, more times than can be counted, for this particular Clause. Here's an attempt to do it right:
"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States[and for other listed purposes]...."
People often leave out the collect-taxes part, and claim simply that "Congress can provide for the general Welfare". They then decide that "general Welfare" means anything that helps people, in any way. This is very convenient for those who want to expand government control, since the number of things that can help people, is almost unlimited.
They couldn't be more wrong, though.
It wouldn't have made much sense, for the original writers of the Constitution to take all the trouble of writing out certain powers of the government such as coining money, setting up Post Offices, punishing counterfeiters, offering patents for inventions, etc. Those things all help people, certainly.
If they were going to just make a general clause saying Government could do anything it wants, that helps people, those other powers are pretty redundant, aren't they? Why bother naming those particular powers, when you've already put a blanket permission for them plus lots of others, in place?
If the Welfare clause were a blanket permission, then 3/4 of the Constitution could be tossed out, because it would already be covered.
But, remember the collect-taxes part.
"Congress shall have the Power to collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States[and for other listed purposes]...."
In fact, the Clause is a statement of what government can spend tax money on. Not a permission to do whatever they wanted under the vague guise of "helping people". And "general Welfare" had a specific definition in 1787-- it was written that way, to distinguish it from "Welfare of particular groups".
So, "to provide for the general Welfare" is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission. The complete clause really means, that the government can collect and spend tax money, but that anything spent to help people, must be applied evenly to the entire population, and cannot be "targeted" at certain groups. Further, it implies but does not explicitly say, that if a spending program does not boost the welfare of the entire population, then it is forbidden. Unless, of course, the spending program comes under other permissions listed in the Constitution, such as National Defense, the Courts, Patent office, etc.
I took my family to Washington DC (and Philly, Gettysburg, Princeton, Nyawk, and Bahston) last year. Was astonished to find the Welfare Clause misquoted, carved into the wall inside the U.S Capitol building. They carefully left out the Collect-Taxes part there, too.
We've got a lot of work to do, to root out the leftist fanatics from our government that was designed to ban them.
This is a fallacy common to those who believe that the purpose of earning wealth is to support government.
They also typically believe that the way somebody gets money, is by stealing it. And if they see one theft (every society has thefts), they jump to the conclusion that all earning is theft. Or at least all earning about some arbitrary level they set for us.
From that, comes the entire mindset where the rich are eeeevil and it's OK for the rest of us to steal from the rich. Because, after all, the rich stole it from us, didn't they?
Didn't they?
They never stop to consider the consequences of their being wrong. The idea that THEY are destroying the society by okaying theft from people who, in fact, did NOT steal, is idly waved off as though it were impossible.
The poor cannot afford to pay for the infrastructure of our country. If you want our country to remain a world power, those who use our infrastructure to pilfer our resources need to pay for what they use and take. Otherwise we will continue to fail economically.
In Texas, the homestead law was enacted to protect widows and children from losing their homes because they couldn't pay property taxes.
Do you hate women and children?
Of course not, I don't hate women and children, and neither does Michigan...which has a "poverty" property tax deferral program, where the taxes are paid after the homeowner dies; i.e. nobody loses their home, and the owner's heirs pay the tax later on. (Note also that the heirs enjoy the huge benefit of a "step-up" in the home's tax basis.)
Why does Texas hate women and children who were never able to buy a home? Renters are usually much poorer than homeowners, yet Texas "protects" homeowners while leaving renters to twist slowly in the wind while they lose their homes. What's up with that?
I bet half of low income owners pay half their income on housing, also.
I find that highly implausible, because of the way mortgage lending works. Lenders use various ratios to qualify applicants for mortgage loans; it is common to deny loans which would require more than 28% of an applicant's income to repay. So lenders do a pretty good job of not getting into situations where borrowers would spend half their income on housing. Obviously, some homeowners face financial difficulties after qualifying for a mortgage, but these are surely not half. And the millions of homeowners who own their homes outright are least likely of all to pay half their income on housing, unless they live in areas with astronomical property taxes.
Most homeowners, especially empty-nester retirees on lower incomes, are able to generate rental income by renting out one or more rooms in their homes.
Not correct. You can sell you home for any price, if you own it outright. The bank becomes involved when you try and sell it for less than its worth, because the bank won't get their money, which they loaned you in good faith.
If you own it outright, there is no (longer any) bank to get in your way.
Oh please. One spotlight fallacy doesn't justify your assertion.
As to the Constitution's bias towards property owners, I'd love to hear how that's the case in the Constitution's existing incarnation!
Zoning curtails individual property rights for the collective benefit of all incumbent property owners. Zning restricts housing supply, for the benefit of incumbent homeowners. It's not at all about future property owners (newcomers) or about renters, who have only those limited property rights government deigns to allow them to have. (e.g. can't buy a home if zoning requires a minimum lot size of one acre and you can afford only one-half acre)
Let's say you are renting the last "affordable" apartment in town. You've lived there for 10 years and you home to live there 20 more years, but if yu have to move, you will have to leave town because there is nothing else in town you can afford. Now lets say the town uses eminent domain to take the building in which you live. The owner (your landlord) received just compensation, while you receive squat...plus you have to leave town because now there is no housing in town you can afford. That's not bias toward property owners?
Oh please. One spotlight fallacy doesn't justify your assertion.
As to the Constitution's bias towards property owners, I'd love to hear how that's the case in the Constitution's existing incarnation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Zoning curtails individual property rights for the collective benefit of all incumbent property owners. Zning restricts housing supply, for the benefit of incumbent homeowners. It's not at all about future property owners (newcomers) or about renters, who have only those limited property rights government deigns to allow them to have. (e.g. can't buy a home if zoning requires a minimum lot size of one acre and you can afford only one-half acre)
Let's say you are renting the last "affordable" apartment in town. You've lived there for 10 years and you home to live there 20 more years, but if yu have to move, you will have to leave town because there is nothing else in town you can afford. Now lets say the town uses eminent domain to take the building in which you live. The owner (your landlord) received just compensation, while you receive squat...plus you have to leave town because now there is no housing in town you can afford. That's not bias toward property owners?
Zoning falls to the Several States; per the 10th Amendment.
In exchange for rent, renters have use of a property (consideration) according to the terms of a civil contract (lease) between an owner and themselves.
By definition, renters do not own the property. Thus the protections guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, pursuant to a property owner receiving just compensation in eminent domain situations, doesn't apply.
That isn't bias; it's common sense. Renters aren't compensated for property they don't own.
The poor cannot afford to pay for the infrastructure of our country. If you want our country to remain a world power, those who use our infrastructure to pilfer our resources need to pay for what they use and take. Otherwise we will continue to fail economically.
This can all be done without taxing businesses out of business. The fed should have to do what every american should be doing. Live within their means. Stop playing world cop. Stop funding infrastructure in other countries, stop wasting tax dollars on things that don't benefit this country.
A billion to Haiti. It sucks they had an earthquake but guess what? We have our own problems.
How much have we wasted on Lybia? Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Do those people like us any more today than before we interfered with their lives?
Our fed has an addiction and that addiction is to pork.
What do you call it when government taxes the poor in order to redistribute income to the middle class?
That's not exactly socialism, since the misery is not shared equally, and is actually concentrated among the poor, but what would you call that?
"Fair share"?
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.
