Another one bites the dust . . .

[rathi]

General Welfare clause????? Where did you learn to read??? That is a preamble statement. It states the PURPOSE of the constitution. It does NOT delineate a power. Those powers and structures are decribed below the preamble starting in artical one. Try again. This now officialy depressing.

Article I 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 defence and general Welfare of the United States". If you had actually studied constitutional law, you would have been aware that clause authorizes a wide variety of federal programs needed for the success of our nation.

Note the internet is combination of goverment educational and commercial colaberation

Yes, and the governments role in funding the technology was an absolute requirement without which the internet would not exist. The only reason we are having this conversation is because the people in authority chose to reject your rabidly narrow views.

 

[rathi]

Not in the news:

Private investments that go bad.
Government investments that go well.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

The role of government is not to gamble taxpayer money trying to make a profit on investments. The role of government is to create an energy policy that provides the needed resources for the nation. Subsidies are an integral part of how our current system works, but there is a major difference between subsidizing a technology and giving money to a specific corporation. Giving a tax credit for purchasing a solar panel is more effective and has far less potential for abuse than giving a giant loan to companies with the connections to reel in government handouts.

 

[PirateMk1]

Article I 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 defence and general Welfare of the United States". If you had actually studied constitutional law, you would have been aware that clause authorizes a wide variety of federal programs needed for the success of our nation.



Yes, and the governments role in funding the technology was an absolute requirement without which the internet would not exist. The only reason we are having this conversation is because the people in authority chose to reject your rabidly narrow views.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[18] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[19]

I stand corrected with the caviet that the James Monroe interpretation is the preferable of the two.

 

[Rainman05]

If green energy would be a viable option, you wouldn't need the government to invest in it. Private investors would come along and invest in it.

However, we are still years away (5-10) from it being truly viable.

 

[Henrin]

The general welfare clause. Given that our entire national prosperity is based on our advanced technology in combination with our large populace and natural resources, funding research is a absolute requirement for our economy and status as a world power. If you had any conviction in your views, you wouldn't be using the internet invented on the government dime. You are simply yet another example of someone who enjoys the benefits of choices made by practical leaders even though you would attempt to destroy them in your blind ideological fanaticism.

Article I 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 defence and general Welfare of the United States". If you had actually studied constitutional law, you would have been aware that clause authorizes a wide variety of federal programs needed for the success of our nation.

Yes, and the governments role in funding the technology was an absolute requirement without which the internet would not exist. The only reason we are having this conversation is because the people in authority chose to reject your rabidly narrow views.

Utter gibberish. All of it.

The general clause was to ensure that the powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states. It has nothing to do with some power that the government has to finance technology development for the welfare of the people.

 

[Henrin]

The role of government is not to gamble taxpayer money trying to make a profit on investments. The role of government is to create an energy policy that provides the needed resources for the nation. Subsidies are an integral part of how our current system works, but there is a major difference between subsidizing a technology and giving money to a specific corporation. Giving a tax credit for purchasing a solar panel is more effective and has far less potential for abuse than giving a giant loan to companies with the connections to reel in government handouts.

The federal government not only has no such authority but it has no such role. Still wrong.

 

[justabubba]

The federal government not only has no such authority but it has no such role. Still wrong.

history proves you wrong

 

[Kurmugeon]

If green energy would be a viable option, you wouldn't need the government to invest in it. Private investors would come along and invest in it.

However, we are still years away (5-10) from it being truly viable.

SOME green or renewable energy sources are a few years or decades from being viable as primary energy sources, others, due to inherent physics and engineering limitations will NEVER be anything beyond very convienent secondary energy sources.


Non-rechargeable chemical Batteries are another example of a secondary energy source, very useful for sonar bouys, flashlights, computer UPS, but NEVER a primary source of energy.


Solar Voltaic will never be a primary source, but rather it is an energy SINK. It will always use more energy to manufacture, field, maintain, and decomission, than it produces over its lifespan.


Attempting to use Solar Voltaic as a primary source is energy suicide.


But that is exactly what the Obama Administration was and is doing.


I do not beleive it is an accident or ignorance, it is all part of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.


-

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The federal government not only has no such authority but it has no such role. Still wrong.

history proves you wrong

The Constitution proves him right.

 

[justabubba]

The Constitution proves him right.

and history proves you wrong, too
unless you can show us a cite proving the supreme court outlawed the funding of social security, nasa, medicare/medicaid, and any number of support programs such as assisted housing and food stamps

 

[Henrin]

history proves you wrong

How is that even possible? So the founders were wrong about what they wrote? That seems highly illogical.

 

[Henrin]

and history proves you wrong, too
unless you can show us a cite proving the supreme court outlawed the funding of social security, nasa, medicare/medicaid, and any number of support programs such as assisted housing and food stamps

That argument has to run with the assumption that the supreme court is always right.

That seems unlikely since they almost immediately breached it at the start of the country to give themselves more power.

 

[justabubba]

That argument has to run with the assumption that the supreme court is always right.

That seems unlikely since they almost immediately breached it at the start of the country to give themselves more power.

thank you for making my point

 

[justabubba]

How is that even possible? So the founders were wrong about what they wrote? That seems highly illogical.

what appears illogical is that the supreme court would have ignored the continuing violation of the Constitution for a span approaching 100 years

here's a rock. go throw it against a stop sign. see if that makes you feel any better about it

 

[KevinKohler]

So...the argument, as I see it is this. On one hand, the federal government should not be investing in specific private businesses, with public funds. Fair enough. But on the other hand, the federal government DOES want to encourage growth, and the research and development of new technologies. Also, fair.

Compromise.

Take the money currently being given to private companies with no strings attached, and use it to HIRE THE OUT OF WORK SCIENTISTS WHO WORKED FOR THOSE COMPANIES DEVELOPING THOSE TECHNOLOGIES. Get it developed, sell the patents to the private companies, use the patent sales to fund further development.

Jesus.

 

[Henrin]

thank you for making my point

How does that prove your point? Look at that powers they were given and then look at what they do. Do they match up?

 

[Henrin]

what appears illogical is that the supreme court would have ignored the continuing violation of the Constitution for a span approaching 100 years

here's a rock. go throw it against a stop sign. see if that makes you feel any better about it

Why exactly would they care?

 

[rathi]

U.S. federal energy policy has the support of the courts, both parties and the American people. Our entire society is entirely reliant on cheap energy and the federal government has played a crucial role in ensuring that we have the needed power supplies. The real debate is how to shape said national energy policy, the justification for federal intervention has both unanimous political support and a proven track record. Its only a issue to rigid ideologues with no power or influence who crave absolutist zealotry over functional policy with which you can actually govern a nation.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Yet that's not star trekky enough to be cool. Rather, it would be a nuts and bolts practical government management decision. Its super cool to think of people darting about in $100,000 electric sports cars and massive solar grids - that any rational business and reality minded person would recognize is going to fail as an economic proposition.

You've insightfully identified the problem as being the character of the people who run the government rather than some intrinsic deficiency in government itself that makes it inevitably incompetent. To these lazy and self-obsessed dreamers, government service is not a job, it's a position. Brought up spoiled and sheltered with all the hard work done by the servants, these heirheads can not blow anything into their already over-inflated egos by actually doing a good job. That requires work and paying attention to unexciting details. We have had our government taken over by bored rich brats looking for a thrill. The most significant foreign example of that phenomenon was Osama bin Laden.

So we have to wake up to the dangers of allowing these incompetent and self-indulgent people to have their Daddies buy these high positions for them. They must be dispossessed and replaced by common people with common sense.

 

[Henrin]

U.S. federal energy policy has the support of the courts, both parties and the American people. Our entire society is entirely reliant on cheap energy and the federal government has played a crucial role in ensuring that we have the needed power supplies. The real debate is how to shape said national energy policy, the justification for federal intervention has both unanimous political support and a proven track record. Its only a issue to rigid ideologues with no power or influence who crave absolutist zealotry over functional policy with which you can actually govern a nation.

If we simple ignore what doesn't work in our favor we are nothing more than a nation of men and not a nation of law.

You simply do not get justification for breaching the constitution by just doing something and it working to some degree. However, I would argue that it hasn't worked that well at all.

 

[justabubba]

Why exactly would they care?

i hear you
it's not like the supreme court sits to evaluate those things which should be found unConstitutional [/s]

 

[nota bene]

I wish the government would stick to helpful things like helping basic research and yes, even small business loans. If many companies in an industry need $100+ million loans, that is an investment better left to private investors who can take all the risks and get all the benefits (the reason why long-term capital gains rates are lower than income).

This is giving undue power to the government to pick winners and losers in an industry. An industry that probably isn't ready for the level of rollout that is being pushed.

I feel this way regardless of whether the companies defaulted or succeeded.

You're making a good point here.

 

[Henrin]

i hear you
it's not like the supreme court sits to evaluate those things which should be found unConstitutional [/s]

So trustworthy and blind. You honestly think the supreme court experiment actually worked, really?

 

[justabubba]

So trustworthy and blind. You honestly think the supreme court experiment actually worked, really?

appears you simply decided to reside in the wrong country
one where the rule of law is not paramount

 

[rathi]

If we simple ignore what doesn't work in our favor we are nothing more than a nation of men and not a nation of law.

You simply do not get justification for breaching the constitution by just doing something and it working to some degree. However, I would argue that it hasn't worked that well at all.

The law is decided by 3 branches of government as elected by the people, not by you. Federal energy policy has overwhelming support every major political entity, which says something given the nature of our current political setup. The DOE does make plenty of mistakes, but that is justification for better policies, not no policy at all.