AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Promote is different from provide.

Perhaps Congress made a policy determination that "providing" minimal sustenance to the very poor "promotes" the general welfare of the whole country. But any argument that the word "promote" means something different than the word "provide" is meaningless because Article I, Section 8 doesn't use the word "promote." The Constitution uses the word "provide."

"Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Quote:

And what IS the GENERAL welfare?

It is the welfare of the entire country, in general. Our elected representatives in Congress make policy determinations that certain social programs serve the general welfare and Congress therefore chooses to fund those programs.

Quote:

Is it one select group who votes Democrat? Or is that that group who votes mostly Republican? Are only SOME people included in the GENERAL welfare or is everybody included in the general welfare?

People vote for representatives. Congress consists of our elected representatives. Congress has the power to fund a program for the general welfare; Congress also has the power to wipe out federally-funded programs. All members of Congress are accountable to the electorate. People have elected Republicans to Congress and Republicans have at several times throughout our history controlled Congress. Republicans were in power for most of the years of the Bush Administration and it was within their power to wipe out any or all social programs if they chose to do so. They didn't.

Quote:

How do you justify that one person is qualified to received benefits as part of the GENERAL welfare but not another?

Congress determines eligibility. In many social programs, such as aid to families with dependent children, eligibility is based on need. Persons lacking both assets and income qualify for assistance providing that they have an eligible child living in the household.

Another example: You qualified for assistance to finance your new furnance when you bought a qualifying energy-efficient furnace. Apparently, our elected representatives in Congress determined that saving energy served the general welfare of the country, and Congress enacted a program that provided income tax credits to persons who updated their heating systems by installing energy-efficient furnaces. Those who did not install a qualifying energy-efficient furnace did not get the tax credit.

Quote:

. . . But as the Constitutional (legitimate) functions of government are for the benefit of all, it is only fair that all pay a share of the taxes.

Should we send the indigent children of this country to work in factories or sweat shops or coal mines? Should we send them out on the street to sell apples or beg for dollars? Or should they stay home alone and unsupervised while their parents, who cannot afford child care, flip burgers at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage? These are difficult questions.

Quote:

There is no Constitutional basis for the government requiring Citizen A to provide Citizen B with anything.

The government does not require A to give anything to B. Congress lays and collects taxes. These collected tax dollars belong to the federal government. Our elected representatives determine how federal dollars will be spent. If you do not agree with the policy choices made by your elected representatives, you have the right to show your disapproval in the voting booth.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

PROVIDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES has to do with achieving the purposes of the United States.

For example:

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The federal government was not constituted to serve as a public charity, or make sissies less afraid. It was constitutied to do the following specific things:

Quote:

Article I. Section 8.
...
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, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

#1 - You start out with ad hominem. That gets you in trouble with a debate judge right off the bat if you were being scored on content and technique here.

If I took Ican halfway seriously, I would not use ad hominem. But I do not, and so I do feel free to use it. He's a prime member of the wacko Conservative faction on this site and proved to me long ago that he's willing to espouse any sort of ideal whatsoever with no regard to it's relation to reality.

Quote:

#2 - You plow right into logical fallacy with an apparent presumption that Ican's statement would result in a segment of society being marginalized.

Sections of society will always be marginalized in any society. This has nothing to do with anyone's ideas or statements but is just a part of life. Our disagreement comes in discussing the best way to both a) shrink the size of this group, and b) help keep them quiescent enough not to revolt.

Not a logical fallacy on my part.

Quote:

#3 - You have not shown how targeting groups is promoting the general welfare unless you are stating that targeting special interest groups is what general welfare means. Is that what you are saying?

Targeting special interest groups - an odd term - is part of promoting the general welfare, yes. The fact is that everyone falls into some group or another which will eventually get special treatment in some way. This recognizes the fact that people are different and have unique needs, and provide different services to society.

I, for example, am a younger white male; THE least supported special interest group in the nation. No special scholarships for me. BUT; I get a tax deduction for riding a bike. I can write off the interest on my student loans. Because I have a major sight impediment, I could but choose not to get money from the gov't for disability.

Others are parents. Some are teachers who get certain tax benefits. Some are clergy. Some are rich investors. Some are Corporations. Some are elderly. The list goes on forever. For every distinction you can name, there's a benefit of some sort recognized by our government.

Dealing with the desires and needs of a diverse populace is a difficult and complicated job and I do not envy the government who has to do it.

Ican's position presumes that the government has no right to treat anyone specially, ever, no matter their personal situation. That all must be treated equally and as little money goes to anyone else's particular situation as possible.

I do not agree with that assessment and think it would turn out to be in fact a quite poor way to run a society, and certainly not the American way.

Quote:

#4 - Leading to revolution suggests a fact not yet in evidence but it could be interesting to discuss. It doesn't help your argument here, however.

Well, I guess that's your opinion. My studies of history have revealed the opposite; namely, that populations which fail to adequately deal with those who live on the margins can count on a lack of stability.

Quote:

#5 - Changing 'promoting' to 'supporting' changes the entire premise of the statement but even if that was allowable--it isn't allowable in formal debate by the way--it begs the question: how?

I did not intend to write supporting; you are correct, Promoting is the correct term. What more, in my post directly before the one in question, I wrote:

Quote:

Of course it is; Congress has the power to both levy taxes AND 'promote the general welfare' of the US.

Clearly demonstrating that I have no issues on the ideological point you wish to raise.

You ask, 'how?' 'How' is by throwing these people just enough to help their lives be a little less shitty. It helps people on the margins retain their employment, provides stability to the poor; this allows us to have a large pool of unskilled labor, which we need for a variety of menial tasks which cannot yet be automated.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

PROVIDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES has to do with achieving the purposes of the United States.

For example:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I love those words from the Declaration of Independence. SECURING individual rights is one of the purposes of government. It's an important purpose. Government serves other purposes as well. Here's what the preamble of our Constitution says:

"The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble uses the word "promote," but Article I, Section 8 uses the word "provide" when referring to the use of money collected through taxation:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Quote:

The federal government was not constituted to serve as a public charity, or make sissies less afraid. It was constitutied to do the following specific things:

Quote:
Article I. Section 8.
...
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, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

You listed powers set forth in Article I, Section 8. But you omitted this power:

Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

CONGRESS has the POWER to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. Congress makes determinations on how to spend money collected through taxation. You do not believe that funding social programs provides for the general welfare. Your elected representatives in Congress disagree with you. What's your remedy? Vote them out of office.

Perhaps you can run for office yourself, become an elected member of Congress, and persuade the majority of other congressional representatives to wipe out social programs. Good luck.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

If you do not like the Constitution the way it is, then lawfully persuade Congress to amend it so that it permits the federal government to do the things you claim you want it to do.

If we continue to expand our violations of the rule of law, we--or our children, or their children--shall become the victims of a dictator. How do I know this you may ask?

I look at what Germany became with Hitler was, what Japan became with Hirohito, what Russia became with Stalin, what China became with Mao Zedong, what Cambodia became with Pol Pot , what Iraq became with Hussein, what Cuba became with the Castros, what Venezuela became with Guevera, what Afghanistan became with the Taliban, what Iran is now ... et cetera.

Also you might want to take a look at John Adams's history of prior republics.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps you can run for office yourself; become a member of Congress; and persuade the majority of other congressional representatives to wipe out social programs. Good luck.

Only in his wet dreams. LOL BTW, does that include the public school system that helps poor kids (like us)? And all those GIs who took advantage of veteran's benefits to go to college. I wonder often where "they" draw the line.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If I took Ican halfway seriously, I would not use ad hominem. But I do not, and so I do feel free to use it. He's a prime member of the wacko Conservative faction on this site and proved to me long ago that he's willing to espouse any sort of ideal whatsoever with no regard to it's relation to reality.

FALSE!
If you truly weren't taking me seriously, you would not have invested your time in debating me.

But this pronouncement of yours means I should no longer take you seriously!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps you can run for office yourself; become a member of Congress; and persuade the majority of other congressional representatives to wipe out social programs. Good luck.

Only in his wet dreams. LOL BTW, does that include the public school system that helps poor kids (like us)? And all those GIs who took advantage of veteran's benefits to go to college. I wonder often where "they" draw the line.

If "they" get the America that they're praying for, you and I (the gosh-dern-commie liberals) will be out on the street, living in a cardboard box, selling rotten apples that we recycle from their dumpsters, and paying taxes to subsidize their children's educations at private religious schools. I think that wholly discredits their "intelligent" design theory.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

It's funny how "they" have been pretty quiet about all that welfare we're giving to all the banks and businesses now. Surely, that's not in the Constitution.

Those "rich" guys don't even have common sense; they gave their employees a bonus with taxpayer funds when they're losing billions - by gambling and greed.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

BTW, does that [wiping out social programs] include the public school system that helps poor kids (like us)? And all those GIs who took advantage of veteran's benefits to go to college. I wonder often where "they" draw the line.

GI's have earned and continue to earn the GI bill.

The quality of education in the Public schools has been declining all over the country, ever since the department of education was established. Yet, the cost per student has been rising far faster than the cost of living. Better to let the states and local communities manage and finance their public schools. Get the feds out of it.

The same is true of colleges who receive federal aid. The decline of their quality is just as bad. Their costs per student have grown way beyond the point that I enjoyed when I went to engineering school. In a typical summer I and at least half my fellow students were able to earn our tuition, room, and book costs. Not any more. Now, they can't even earn 20% of those costs in a typical summer. Get the feds out of it.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's funny how "they" have been pretty quiet about all that welfare we're giving to all the banks and businesses now. Surely, that's not in the Constitution.

Damn right it's not in the Constitution. But you're damn wrong. We have been talking--complaining--about "all that welfare we're giving to all the banks and businesses now." That's is exactly what Bush started and Obama is expanding. Pay attention will ya!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

If you do not like the Constitution the way it is, then lawfully persuade Congress to amend it so that it permits the federal government to do the things you claim you want it to do.

It makes no difference what I want or what you want. We must deal with the facts. We must deal with REALITY. Our Constitution, as it is currently written, grants Congress the POWER to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of funding public welfare programs. You may not like it, but it's in the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

It makes no difference what I want or what you want. We must deal with the facts. We must deal with REALITY. Our Constitution, as it is currently written, grants Congress the POWER to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of funding public welfare programs. You may not like it, but it's in the Constitution

Debra, you have yet to show me that it's in the Constitution. Please find it for me. It's certainly not any where in Article I. that "Our Constitution, as it is currently written, grants Congress the POWER to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of funding public welfare programs."

As you wrote: "It makes no difference what I want or what you want. We must deal with the facts."

All you have to do to get what you want is get Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures to change this in Article I. Section 8.,

"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"

to this,

"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and COMMON welfare of the United States"

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
It makes no difference what I want or what you want. We must deal with the facts. We must deal with REALITY. Our Constitution, as it is currently written, grants Congress the POWER to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of funding public welfare programs. You may not like it, but it's in the Constitution

Debra, you have yet to show me that it's in the Constitution. Please find it for me. It's certainly not any where in Article I. that "Our Constitution, as it is currently written, grants Congress the POWER to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of funding public welfare programs."

As you wrote: "It makes no difference what I want or what you want. We must deal with the facts."

How many times have I copied and pasted this for you now?

Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, this doesn't mean what you allege it means:

"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"

To say what you want it to mean, it must be amended to this:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and COMMON welfare of the United States ...

I realize you think otherwise. Find some evidence to support your claim. I have provided lots of evidence to support my claim.

0 Replies

Definitions of general on the Web:

* applying to all or most members of a category or group; "the general public"; "general assistance"; "a general rule"; "in general terms ...
* not specialized or limited to one class of things; "general studies"; "general knowledge"

com⋅mon1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.

Anyone ready to split hairs?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's funny how "they" have been pretty quiet about all that welfare we're giving to all the banks and businesses now. Surely, that's not in the Constitution.

Damn right it's not in the Constitution. But you're damn wrong. We have been talking--complaining--about "all that welfare we're giving to all the banks and businesses now." That's is exactly what Bush started and Obama is expanding. Pay attention will ya!

A simplistic maxim we were required to memorize in beginning college economics--it was on the final exam--was: If the government wants something to increase, subsidize it. If the government wants something to decrease, tax it.

For instance, if we do not have sufficient domestic production of petroleum and need to buy and import it from other places, there is no problem so long as the supply is plentiful and affordable. But if critical suppliers are unstable countries that are not friendly to the United States, those suppliers have the power to hold us hostage. It is a dangerous situation for our economy and our common defense. So, it makes sense for the government to both promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense by providing tax incentives, relaxing certain regulations, and take other measures to make it profitable enough for our own industry to take the risk, make the investment, do the R&D, do the exploration, produce the raw products, and expand facilities to convert it into energy. If the government incentives are explicitly limited and will expire within a reasonable period, once increased energy independence is accomplished, free market principles can easily resume. Everybody, rich and poor alike, benefits from that kind of incentive.

And taxing those things that we don't want to increase also makes sense. The goverment doesn't care if fewer people drink or smoke and in fact could see it as promoting the general welfare to encourage less of both. So, short of promoting illegal activity and a black market, taxes on cigarettes and booze make perfectly good sense while subsidizing tobacco absolutely does not.

But we got away from many of the old rational principles, didn't we? Much of the time we're doing it backwards.

More and more the call seems to be to heavily tax what we should want more of--sources of jobs, manufacturing, products, services, raw materials, excellence, accomplishment--and heavily subsidize what we should want less of--dependency, irresponsible behavior, incompetence, ineffectiveness, and abandoment of values that produce prosperity.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It's funny how your study of economics concerning how government operates to subsidize anything as a final exam question. Any conclusion concerning this question has no real answer, because history proves it.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

On its face, it appears that government subsidizing what we want more, and government raising taxes on what we don't want more, seems like a good thing. But it is not a good thing when it is corrupted by raising taxes on what we want more and subsidizing what we don't want more. And it is too easily corrupted to think it will not be corrupted.

I think it better if neither subsidizing or raising taxes were employed by the government to affect supply of anything it doesn't require to exercise its Constitutionally granted powers. I think it better if the supply of anything, other than what the government actually requires to "provide for the common defenseand general welfare", were actually determined by the free market. Tolerating the government going beyond its Constitutionally granted powers is a clear invitation to corruption of our Constitutional Republic.

If politicians always consisted of people who were primarily motivated to serve the public interest regardless of their own personal interests, we wouldn't have this problem. But they aren't and we do!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

In principle I agree. But I can also see legitimate interests of government to see to the common defense and the general welfare. An increase in taxes to fund a nationwide interstate highway system would fall into that category. And energy independence that would benefit all Americans everywhere I see as another. I supported government initiatives such as putting a man on the moon--the space exploration program is best done at the federal level and has netted us amazing benefits--and I don't have any problem with a reasonable number of national parks to preserve some national treasures for us all.

I see a federal initiative to help New York City build a public transit system or building a bridge on a state road in Iowa to be abuse of federal powers and certainly the federal government has no business funding a YMCA here in Albuquerque--that happened a few years ago--or funding stem cell research or any other programs that appear to be noble and wonderful things but are not the Constitutional prerogative of government.

I remain firm in my conviction that government should not be doing ANYTHING that cannot be accomplished more efficiently/effectively/economically by the private sector however.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know