Does the US Constitution Say "Provide for the General Welfare""?

[American]

No, your assertion was:



That is false. They can only TAX and SPEND to promote the general welfare, not do anything they want... I've explained this like 10 times. I'm having a hard time believing you are approaching this debate honestly.

Yes, and general welfare means whatever they want it to mean. Read my signature.

 

[teamosil]

Yes, and general welfare means whatever they want it to mean. Read my signature.

It means whatever we the people want it to mean. We elect politicians who we believe have a good idea of what the general welfare of the country means and how to best achieve it. That's the whole point of having a democracy.

 

[American]

It means whatever we the people want it to mean. We elect politicians who we believe have a good idea of what the general welfare of the country means and how to best achieve it. That's the whole point of having a democracy.

OMG, you really don't have a clue. Lean and location noted. :roll:

 

[teamosil]

OMG, you really don't have a clue. Lean and location noted. :roll:

The constitution is clear. You don't seem to have an argument to present on that front. So lets talk about whether if we were to re-write the constitution it would make sense to do include that clause or not. It would appear that you are contending that the voters ought to be prohibited from joining together towards a common goal of improving the general well being of the country... No country has ever existed which was prohibited from doing things to try to improve it's own well being... Why would that be a good idea? Why even have a government if it is not allowed to try to improve things?

I doubt you actually support that position... I think you just disagree with the way they have gone about it in some specific cases and you wish the constitution forced the government to side with you in those cases rather than siding with the majority, right?

 

[TurtleDude]

The constitution is clear. You don't seem to have an argument to present on that front. So lets talk about whether if we were to re-write the constitution it would make sense to do include that clause or not. It would appear that you are contending that the voters ought to be prohibited from joining together towards a common goal of improving the general well being of the country... No country has ever existed which was prohibited from doing things to try to improve it's own well being... Why would that be a good idea? Why even have a government if it is not allowed to try to improve things?

I doubt you actually support that position... I think you just disagree with the way they have gone about it in some specific cases and you wish the constitution forced the government to side with you in those cases rather than siding with the majority, right?

those who pushed the final solution claimed it was for the good of the Third Reich. Just as stalin's goons said that about the collectivization of the farms or Mao's "Great leap forward"/Cultural revolution.

if the constitution has no rigidity it has no use and I tire of libs pretending it can be read to support ever socialist scheme that comes down the pike

 

[teamosil]

those who pushed the final solution claimed it was for the good of the Third Reich. Just as stalin's goons said that about the collectivization of the farms or Mao's "Great leap forward"/Cultural revolution.

And are you contending that the US constitution would allow something like the holocaust here? How do you figure? That wasn't spending, that was a whole boatload of other powers, so your comparison makes no sense.

if the constitution has no rigidity it has no use and I tire of libs pretending it can be read to support ever socialist scheme that comes down the pike

Nobody says it has no rigidity. It is rigid. You just wish it said something ridiculous- that we should be prohibited from doing anything to promote the well being of our country....

 

[TurtleDude]

And are you contending that the US constitution would allow something like the holocaust here? How do you figure? That wasn't spending, that was a whole boatload of other powers, so your comparison makes no sense.



Nobody says it has no rigidity. It is rigid. You just wish it said something ridiculous- that we should be prohibited from doing anything to promote the well being of our country....

if people like you are in a position to interpret the consitution absolutely

 

[Goobieman]

I believe that addresses all your other points, but if not, first lets get settled on the above and then we can revisit any ancillary arguments if you still think they make sense. But without grasping the above we can't really talk about any of the other stuff, so I'm dropping those out for now.

Sigh....

Just so I have you straight:
You argue that the CD/GWC allows Congress to spend revenue on raising and supporting armies, but the power to spend such revenue does not confer the power to create legslation to actually raise and support hose armies; said power must me specificed elsewhere in the Constitution.
Right?

 

[teamosil]

Sigh....

Just so I have you straight:
You argue that the CD/GWC allows Congress to spend revenue on raising and supporting armies, but the power to spend such revenue does not confer the power to create legslation to actually raise and support hose armies; said power must me specificed elsewhere in the Constitution.
Right?

You're just trying to distract from the argument... You do get the distinction between being able to spend on anything that promotes general welfare and being able to do anything whatsoever in the name of general welfare, right?

As to the thing about raising armies, it does sound like just raising, but not using, an army would mostly just be spending, so I get what you're saying, but as to why they called that one out separately, I guess they just figured it was a big deal and wanted to make it clear. Maybe at the time there were people contending that there should only be state level armies or whatever. Or maybe they just thought that being allowed to have overwhelming deadly force on hand was a big deal so they wanted to spell that out specifically. Doesn't really matter, it isn't relevant to the conversation. If they spelled out the power to spend twice that doesn't mean they didn't spell out the power to spend...

 

[TurtleDude]

how does expanding the dependent class promote the GENERAL welfare? most peoples' welfare would be better off if we did everything possible to end dependency

 

[teamosil]

how does expanding the dependent class promote the GENERAL welfare? most peoples' welfare would be better off if we did everything possible to end dependency

That's just your personal opinion that a safety net "expands the dependent class"... Like I said, if you have any evidence whatsoever supporting that premise, lets see it. So far, the evidence we have all points the opposite way. Countries with thicker safety nets have better intergenerational income mobility. What that means is that countries that spend more on the safety net have LESS dependency. It is easier for people in those countries to get out of poverty. Second, we saw that only 1/4 of the number of people who were on welfare 20 years ago are now. So that means is that dependency isn't really happening.

So, you are asserting the opposite. What evidence do you have supporting that premise?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

the general welfare is not welfare (medicaid, medicare, handouts etc). I understand that many assume that the term the founders penned somehow meant giving people the money of others but its not

those income redistribution programs are called welfare but that is not what the term "the general welfare" means nor is that term an end around the concept of al limited government

far more than 1% gets handouts from the federal government-be it food stamps, medicare, medicaid, SSI, etc. I never said half the country gets handouts.

Do you know at what income point someone actually is paying more in taxes than they get back from the government>

Is it possible that you in no way receive any government bennies, directly or indirectly?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

how does expanding the dependent class promote the GENERAL welfare? most peoples' welfare would be better off if we did everything possible to end dependency

Would you be willing to give up your tax write offs for your dependents and your mortgages? What would you sacrifice in order to make our tax laws more equitable?

 

[TurtleDude]

That's just your personal opinion that a safety net "expands the dependent class"... Like I said, if you have any evidence whatsoever supporting that premise, lets see it. So far, the evidence we have all points the opposite way. Countries with thicker safety nets have better intergenerational income mobility. What that means is that countries that spend more on the safety net have LESS dependency. It is easier for people in those countries to get out of poverty. Second, we saw that only 1/4 of the number of people who were on welfare 20 years ago are now. So that means is that dependency isn't really happening.

So, you are asserting the opposite. What evidence do you have supporting that premise?

anything the government subsidizes increases.
the fact is-government income redistribution efforts increase constantly. the Idiotic Obama health care nonsense is a prime example. plus you limit your inquiry to what you consider welfare.

 

[TurtleDude]

Would you be willing to give up your tax write offs for your dependents and your mortgages? What would you sacrifice in order to make our tax laws more equitable?

I pay far too much tax for what I get. I carry the load of dozens of others. I want people to pay for what they use. and since there are way too many free loaders as well as those who legitimately need help (wounded veterans for example deserve public assistance. Same with crippled fire fighters, disabled police officers etc) that won't happen so I will settle for a system where congress cannot pander to those who think others ought to care for them or those who have hate, envy or spite for those who are better off and.or more productive than they are.

that means AT MINIMUM a flat tax-better yet and far more efficient-a sales tax

it is idiotic that 51% can vote up the taxes of those who pay most of the taxes with no real skin in the game. It is idiotic that those who vote for tax increases suffer no increases themselves since they NEVER have an incentive to reign in spending.

 

[TurtleDude]

Is it possible that you in no way receive any government bennies, directly or indirectly?

I never said I shouldn't pay taxes. But when I pay 100X more than the average tax payer that is wrong. No way do I get 100s more benefits FROM THE GOVERNMENT>

I constantly ask and none of you will answer-does a kid who graduates first in his class at a public school owe the government more because he earned honors and scholarships than the kid who cuts classes and flunks out? both should pay the same since they were given exactly the same thing by the school administration

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I pay far too much tax for what I get. I carry the load of dozens of others. I want people to pay for what they use. and since there are way too many free loaders as well as those who legitimately need help (wounded veterans for example deserve public assistance. Same with crippled fire fighters, disabled police officers etc) that won't happen so I will settle for a system where congress cannot pander to those who think others ought to care for them or those who have hate, envy or spite for those who are better off and.or more productive than they are.

that means AT MINIMUM a flat tax-better yet and far more efficient-a sales tax

it is idiotic that 51% can vote up the taxes of those who pay most of the taxes with no real skin in the game. It is idiotic that those who vote for tax increases suffer no increases themselves since they NEVER have an incentive to reign in spending.

You sound greedy.

 

[TurtleDude]

You sound greedy.

you sound like a flea whining to a dog that dons a flea collar that he is being greedy

 

[American]

You're just trying to distract from the argument... You do get the distinction between being able to spend on anything that promotes general welfare and being able to do anything whatsoever in the name of general welfare, right?

As to the thing about raising armies, it does sound like just raising, but not using, an army would mostly just be spending, so I get what you're saying, but as to why they called that one out separately, I guess they just figured it was a big deal and wanted to make it clear. Maybe at the time there were people contending that there should only be state level armies or whatever. Or maybe they just thought that being allowed to have overwhelming deadly force on hand was a big deal so they wanted to spell that out specifically. Doesn't really matter, it isn't relevant to the conversation. If they spelled out the power to spend twice that doesn't mean they didn't spell out the power to spend...

That fact that you think the founders weren't precise in their wording of the Constitution is troubling. You have to understand that every word was measured, and they didn't just put stuff in off the top of their heads. If it was covered, there was a reason.

 

[teamosil]

anything the government subsidizes increases.

So you have no evidence supporting your view? Why would you defend a point of view in a debate that you have no evidence for?

 

[teamosil]

That fact that you think the founders weren't precise in their wording of the Constitution is troubling. You have to understand that every word was measured, and they didn't just put stuff in off the top of their heads. If it was covered, there was a reason.

I gave a few possible reasons...

 

[American]

I gave a few possible reasons...

I know what you did, but they didn't write the Constitution for just that period in history, they wrote it for posterity.

 

[teamosil]

I know what you did, but they didn't write the Constitution for just that period in history, they wrote it for posterity.

If some people were arguing against having a national army at the time, they would have no way to know whether people would still take that stance in the future, so that doesn't really address that point, and you haven't even tried to address the point about that having overwhelming deadly force on hand being a signficant power so they would want to be clear about that. Even if your analysis were solid, it would still be quite a convoluted legal argument, but it isn't really that solid either...

 

[Goobieman]

As to the thing about raising armies, it does sound like just raising, but not using, an army would mostly just be spending, so I get what you're saying, but as to why they called that one out separately, I guess they just figured it was a big deal and wanted to make it clear.

You did not answer my question.

You argue that the CD/GWC allows Congress to spend revenue on raising and supporting armies, but the power to spend such revenue does not confer the power to create legslation to actually raise and support hose armies; said power must me specificed elsewhere in the Constitution.

Right?

 

[teamosil]

You did not answer my question.

You argue that the CD/GWC allows Congress to spend revenue on raising and supporting armies, but the power to spend such revenue does not confer the power to create legslation to actually raise and support hose armies; said power must me specificed elsewhere in the Constitution.

Right?

No, that's not right. I would say that without the power to raise armies being specified in the constitution, you could still make a case that it was allowed. However, using that military would definitely be unconstitutional if not specified. The power to kill people definitely is not something that is just assumed in the constitution. So, you could theoretically argue that the executive, not the legislative is the one ordering the military to actually kill people, so technically they could have gotten away not specifying the power to raise armies in article 1 section 8, but it's not really so clear cut... Having a military that wasn't allowed to do anything is kind of a silly fringe case you're basing your argument on...

But, regardless, for the fourth time, it doesn't matter. If they were technically being overly explicit that doesn't imply that any other clause which could potentially have also allowed them to do the same thing is somehow invalid... If you go down that road, then you could just nix whatever you wanted... For example, it says they can raise armies in one power, that they can create rules governing those armies in another, and that they can pass laws and then that they can make laws pertaining to those powers. By your reasoning, we could therefore argue that we need to ignore the power to create laws because if they really meant it, they wouldn't have included the power to govern and regulate the army separately... Just because they wanted some things to be crystal clear in specific cases doesn't mean that we can disregard whatever we want in the constitution. It flat out says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States". You may not like that, but that's what it says.