22
   

Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?

 
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 07:16 pm
@Baldimo,
I'm not arguing to get rid of the USAF. I'm only pointing out that there's no constitutional specificity for an agency or program to exist. I brought up the USPS as a contrast to something like the USAF, because it is a service that costs more money than it probably needs to, but is specifically named in the constitution.

How does social spending promote the general welfare? Name a program, and I'll do my best to answer, but let's be specific. While we're at it, here:

http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/

This is a info graphic of the entire US budget, deficit, and debt with every program and office broken down in the discretionary budget.

Also, let's define welfare.
Websters wrote:

WELFARE (n)
1: The state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>

2a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
2b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

Is this agreeable, or would you like to improve this definition to fit your thesis?

So what social programs don't fit this in your opinion? Let's start here.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 04:33 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

@Set
Quote:
The final clause of Article One, Section Eight reads: 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.

I know that's inconvenient for your argument, but you don't get to cherry-pick the constitution, it's an all or nothing affair.


?


Why the question mark, is your attention span that short? Earlier, you wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Please tell me how social spending is talked about in the Constitution in regards to Section 8 where the "Common Defense and the General Welfare" are mentioned? You won't be able to because it isn't there. You have to make up meanings to fit what you think "General Welfare" means.


It is there, as i demonstrated. To re-iterate, you don't get to choose items from the constitution which please you, and ignore the rest. The power to legislate in furtherance of its powers clearly gives the Congress the right to create social welfare programs if they so choose, under the rubric "promote the general welfare." Who give's a rat's ass if a bunch of nuckle-dragging mouth-breathers don't like it?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 11:16 am
@Setanta,
@Art/Set

Quote:
The Congress shall have 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 an 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, dock-Yards, 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.


Listed above is Section 1 Article 8 of the Constitution. You are using a single line at the end of the Article to make your argument for "General Welfare". I wasn't cherry picking the Article, I was looking at what it was saying.

Going by your logic, this could be pushed to do anything the Congress wanted to do since they make law. You are not doing a very good job of proving your case. Both of you are using fuzzy logic to make a point you can't make.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:06 pm
@Baldimo,
Nonsense. Article One, Section Nine lists the limits on the powes of Congress. Articles Two and Three, by defining the powers of the executive and judicial branches inferentially limit the powers of Congress. The amendments generally referred to as the bill of rights, particularly the ninth and tenth amendments, limit the powers of Congress.

However, at the end of the day, Congress is the embodiment of the legislative power in the government. Who else do you think is going to make laws? You're the one here whose "logic" is fuzzy. Basically, all it consists of is that you don't like the idea of social welfare, so you're ranting that it's unconstitutional. You're not demonstating that that is the case, you're just ranting about it.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:17 pm
@Setanta,
Why are you not able to point to the Constitution and show me where the meaning of General Welfare is listed? You still haven't provided any proof that Social spending is spelled out in the Constitution. 2 words do not make it so and make it right.

There is no mention of social spending in the Constitution and you have done nothing to prove your point. "General Welfare" could be used for all sorts of things. Interment Camps during WWII could be considered "General Welfare" because they protected the well being of US citizens. General Welfare can mean anything you want it to.

At least Common Defense is given a solid meaning in the Constitution. General Welfare has nothing but what you guys want it to mean.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:19 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
General Welfare can mean anything you want it to.


The Supreme Court certainly agrees with this statement, and has said so in a variety of cases which has come before them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:23 pm
@Baldimo,
Point to the constitution and tell me where provide for the common defense is defined. That the constitution mentions the power of Congress to punish piracies, estalish an army and a navy and regulate and arm the militia is not a definition of the common defense. In that the second amendment had not been written, ratified and adopted when the constitution was written, "the security of a free state" had not been defined, either. Can you show me where that is defined in the constitution?

Your "arguments" are nit-picking quibbles with no logical underpinning, and certainly no force of law. If you are so certain of your case, put your money where your mouth is and bring a class action law suit.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:30 pm
@Setanta,
Wow set that really takes the cake. Since you can't provide your own proof you say mine isn't good enough.

Quote:
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;


The above quote is talking about the Common Defense. Creating an Army and navy funding them, using them to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. If this isn't spelling out what the Common Defense is then I don't know what it is.

Can you point to the same things when it comes to General Welfare or do you just rely on those 2 words to make up your whole argument?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:38 pm
Talking about those things doesn't constitute a definition of the common defense. Futhermore, your interpretation was used by Thomas Jefferson--and the militia ran away in the War of 1812, and had Washington and Adams not created a first class navy, we'd have had no defense by sea, either. Jefferson's gun boat navy went to the bottom pretty damned quick.

I have made my argument. You're just squirming now. Where does the constitution define piracies? Where does the constitution define insurrection? Where does the constitution define discipline? You have no argument, just a thoughtless conservative objection to anyone but large corporations and rich white men from getting welfare from the government.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:40 pm
@Setanta,
Nice try Set. While I have provided you with what the Constitution says when it comes the Common Defense you still have not provided your proof about social spending. You still rely on 2 words to make your meaning.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 01:55 pm
@Baldimo,
There are more than two words in the final clause of Section 8. The constitution does not specify a Coast Guard, yet Congress established one. Do you allege it is unconstitutional? The constitution does not specify a Coast and Geodetic Survey, yet Congress established one (NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation is the direct descendant of the Coast and Geodetic Survey). Both are inferentially related to the power Congress has to provide for the common defense. The Coast Guard ought to be obvious, even to someone displaying a selective understanding such as you have been doing. The Coast and Geodetic Survey was established to provide nautical surveys and topographical engineers, in order to map the coasts and the interior. These are all inferential responses to the power to provide for the common defense. By what passes for logic at your house, not only the Air Force, but the Coast Guard and NOAA are all unconstitutional.

You have provided some of the things the constitution says about the common defense. You have not provided a definition and you have not shown that Congress is limited in its powers to those things which were specified. The Dick Act, which created the National Guard defined it as the organized militia, as opposed to all citizens who have the right to participate in (one assumes) an unorganized militia. This concept is not mentioned in the constitution. Do you allege that the National Guard is unconstitutional?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 02:07 pm
@Setanta,
Stop arguing you two. Get Ican to resolve this.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 02:46 pm
@Setanta,
You still haven't provided anything about social spending. You are picking apart my posts but providing nothing for you defense of "General Welfare". Try again Set.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 03:39 pm
@Baldimo,
The constitution does not define the common defense, and even using your own failed attempt to assert it does, you don't end up supporting the extra constitutional agencies of the DoD.

Providing for the general welfare is the basis of social programs. If you don't believe that this is the case, tell me what "promoting the general welfare" means, and give examples of it in our government.

Ante up, or are you afraid you'll get yourself caught up in a logical downward spiral?

A
R
T
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 05:58 pm
@Baldimo,
I already did. Are you impaired in your reading comprehension? The justification for the Coast Guard and the Air Force is inferentially based on Congress' power to provide for the common defense. Social welfare programs are based on Congress' inferential power to provide for the general welfare. It's hardly my fault if you can't see that.

What it is, is that i've given you an answer and the justification for it in the constitution. You just don't like the answer. Who gives a rat's ass if you refuse to see it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 07:14 pm
@Baldimo,
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

Quote:
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question.

...

The Supreme Court Cases-

Three Social Security cases made their way to the Supreme Court during its October 1936 term. One challenged the old-age insurance program (Helvering vs. Davis) and two challenged the unemployment compensation program of the Social Security Act. The Court would issue rulings on all three on the same day.

...

The Court ruled 7 to 2 in support of the old-age insurance program. And even though two Justices disagreed with the decision, no separate dissents were authored. The unemployment compensation provisions, by contrast, were hotly disputed within the Court, just as they had been the focus of most of the debate in Congress. The Court ruled 5 to 4 in support of the unemployment compensation provisions, and three of the Justices felt compelled to author separate dissents in the Steward Machine case and one Justice did so in the Southern Coal & Coke case.

...



Seriously, Baldi, this stuff isn't hard to find.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 07:20 pm
@failures art,
@Art
First of all I never brought up the extra constitutional agencies. I mentioned cutting funding in SS to people who are not of retirement age. You brought up extra constitutional agencies and I agreed that we can stand to do without some of them and even cut redundant agencies. You never commented on the SS aspect of my comment. Instead you brought up the Air Force and the USPS. That is a deflection.

You are right though the Constitution does not define common defense but it sure as hell outlines it and what it should do. The same cannot be said for social spending.

Quote:
Providing for the general welfare is the basis of social programs. If you don't believe that this is the case, tell me what "promoting the general welfare" means, and give examples of it in our government.


I see providing for the General Welfare as making sure everyone has the same opportunities and availability to the basic necessities of life. I do not think it means the govt has to provide for people. There should be a limit to what the govt can just give people without them doing something for themselves.

There used to be a saying, Charity starts at home.


@Set
Quote:
Social welfare programs are based on Congress' inferential power to provide for the general welfare. It's hardly my fault if you can't see that.


The only difference being that there is an outline as to what the common defense means and what it applies to. I will say again there is no outline for what General Welfare means. You are saying "General Welfare means whatever Congress says it means".

Quote:
What it is, is that I’ve given you an answer and the justification for it in the constitution. You just don't like the answer. Who gives a rat's ass if you refuse to see it.


I'm asking for a Constitutional outline of General Welfare and you don't seem to be able to provide one, other than to say "whatever law Congress makes is what General Welfare means". Seems pretty vague to me, but if that is your lame ass excuse for General Welfare then it is no wonder our country is in such horrible shape.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 07:24 pm
@Baldimo,
Why don't you go read up on Wikipedia about the General Welfare Clause?

They give a nice historical overview of how the Clause has been argued and interpreted.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 07:47 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

@Art
First of all I never brought up the extra constitutional agencies.

You challenged that the government has the power to do "social spending." This inherently summons a constitutional argument. I demonstrated that extra constitutional agencies do in fact exist and exist under an interpretation of section 8. You are challenging the power of government to do "social spending," but you continue to fail to realize what an interpretation like that would mean across the board.

You cannot have it both ways.

Baldimo wrote:

I mentioned cutting funding in SS to people who are not of retirement age. You brought up extra constitutional agencies and I agreed that we can stand to do without some of them and even cut redundant agencies. You never commented on the SS aspect of my comment. Instead you brought up the Air Force and the USPS. That is a deflection.

We're talking about authority. Your challenging the authority to do something on on the social/domestic side of the government, and expecting that it does not effect the authority to do things on the defense side.

Baldimo wrote:

You are right though the Constitution does not define common defense but it sure as hell outlines it and what it should do. The same cannot be said for social spending.

This term "social spending" you keep using is peculiar. It's not a constitutional term as far as I know. "General welfare" is, and under it, social programs and public interest agencies are well justified.

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
Providing for the general welfare is the basis of social programs. If you don't believe that this is the case, tell me what "promoting the general welfare" means, and give examples of it in our government.


I see providing for the General Welfare as making sure everyone has the same opportunities and availability to the basic necessities of life.

Not a bad start. Does your tiger have teeth?

Baldimo wrote:

I do not think it means the govt has to provide for people. There should be a limit to what the govt can just give people without them doing something for themselves.

There are limits. Presenting the idea that government provides everything is false. Even the people who have every possible social entitlement from the government still don't have everything. Do you know why? Because there is a limit to what they get. Do you understand what a "limit" is? If there are no limits, then you are saying there is nothing more the government could give. Wanna pretend?

Baldimo wrote:

There used to be a saying, Charity starts at home.

Sayings are words. Programs are action. Even a struggling or imperfect program will provide better than a person who can speak a proverb from a comfortable arm chair about charity starting at home--someone else's that is.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2011 10:29 pm
@Baldimo,
You're quibbling again. You object to the lack of a definition of general welfare, so i asked you about a definition of piracies, of insurrection and of discipline. You have remained mute. These terms are not defined because there was (and still is) no doubt about their meaning. Your alleged outline does not provide for an Air Force, for a Coast Guard, nor for a Coast and Geodetic Surey. You have remained mute on those subjects as well. If an Air Force, a Coast Guard and a Coast and Geodetic Survey can inferentially be established under Congress' power to provide for the common defense, than social welfare programs can be inferentially established under Congress' power to provide for the general welfare. You are happy with militarism, but not what you see as socialism. Tough ****.

You may now be asking for a constitutional outline, but that's because you just brought it up. It's meaningless. Congress has the power to establish social welfare programs pursuant to the power granted it to provide for the general welfare. The courts have upheld this inferential power. Get over it.

Keep your bullshit straw man arguments to yourself. I did not at any time say anything remotely resembleing this horseshit: "whatever law Congress makes is what General Welfare means"--your argument is so feeble and your attempts at logic so desparate that you have to make up things now.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:49:11