The General Welfare Clause Discussion/Debate

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

There would have to be a core group of full time professional soldiers. That would create, effectively, a standing army.

 

[danielpalos]

There would have to be a core group of full time professional soldiers. That would create, effectively, a standing army.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

[Rich2018]

No. I call it upgrading infrastructure for more cost effective Government.

So you would happily see the US postal service have competition, in all the services it offers ?

We should be trying to maximize scale economies.

Why? Will that lead to greater efficiency ?
Do you support a command economy ?
In your opinion, if the USA had one giant shoe factory, would that be better than the situation we have now, with hundreds of places making footwear and constantly competing against each other on price and for the consumer's attention ?

Have state run monopolies ever been efficient ?
If so, please list a couple.

It is one way the general Government can generate more revenue while reducing inflationary pressure on the private sector.

How does an inefficient, state run monopoly do that ?

Have you ever studied economics ?

 

[danielpalos]

So you would happily see the US postal service have competition, in all the services it offers ?

Everything but official business.

 

[danielpalos]

Why? Will that lead to greater efficiency ?

Yes, it will help reduce inflationary pressures on the private sector.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So you would happily see the US postal service have competition, in all the services it offers ?



Why? Will that lead to greater efficiency ?
Do you support a command economy ?
In your opinion, if the USA had one giant shoe factory, would that be better than the situation we have now, with hundreds of places making footwear and constantly competing against each other on price and for the consumer's attention ?

Have state run monopolies ever been efficient ?
If so, please list a couple.



How does an inefficient, state run monopoly do that ?

Have you ever studied economics ?

Can you tie this to the General Welfare Clause please ?

 

[Mircea]

I see it exactly the other way.... if you want to see dependency, try not providing Social Security and Medicare to our seniors.

Well, you've been ripped off to the tune $29 trillion to date - hundreds of trillions when you factor in SS and Medicare.

Your math doesn't add up. Your exaggerations are grotesque.

I would remind you that it was a Republican governor who invented social security.

Yes, that's right....it's a Republican invention.

When FDR was governor of New York State, he formed a committee which borrowed elements of the social security programs in effect in other States to create a social security program for New York State.

There were 35 States with social security programs and the remaining 13 States -- yes, there were only 48 States at the time -- either had pending legislation to create social security programs or had appointed committees to study social security programs at the time FDR pulled a Castro/Mossadeq/Allende/Cardenas/Faisal/Qasim/British Government and nationalized them.

The point being -- all of your whining and sniveling aside -- whether FDR was President or not or existed or not or was dead or alive or the Ghost of Christmas past or time traveling, you'd have social security....

.....and all thanks to a Republican governor who pioneered it.

 

[Mircea]

Time to remove the cap on earnings and replace it with a floor. No FICA taxes on first $X amount of earnings, then FICA on all the rest.

Congratulations are in order.

You have successfully destroyed Social Security.

At the risk of talking over your head -- and your 4th Grade Math teacher can back me up on this....go find them on FacePuke -- the funding formula for Social Security is very simple:

FICA Revenues = # of Workers * Wages * FICA Tax Rate

We know from our 4th Grade Math that if we alter any of the factors, we increase/decrease the product.

You are 13 Million workers short on top of the 6.3 Million that are currently unemployed, or in simple terms, you are 19 Million workers short.

Might I suggest you send your Army and Marines to foreign countries, kidnap 13 Million workers and their families, and bring them back to the US, and create 19 Million jobs overnight for them and the 6 Million currently unemployed.

If you did that, and if you had exactly 0.0% unemployment for the next 500 years, Social Security would be solvent.

Somehow, I don't think that's gonna happen.

So.....can you increase wages?

No, because benefits are tied to wages and increasing wages is a zero sum game that changes nothing. Social Security is insolvent and will always remain so.

Can you increase the FICA Tax?

Yes, and the good news is you only have to increase it once to 8.0% to 8.4% each for employer and employee and Social Security will be solvent for the next 500 years with no additional tax increases needed.

Why? I just told you why. Look at the funding formula again and have your 4th Grade Math teacher explain it to you.

The FICA Tax of 1% for employer and employee was never enough and everyone knew that. The goal was to get the Social Security Act of 1935 passed and then fix the funding problem later.

In 1940, you had 159 workers for every beneficiary.

By 1945 that had dropped to 42 workers for every beneficiary.

The ratio of workers to beneficiaries continued to decline.....

1950 it was 16:1
1960 it was 5:1
1970 it was 4:1
1980 it was 3:1

At present, it is 2.8:1

By 2040 it will be 2.3:1

The good news is that from that point and for the next 500 years, it will always be 2.0:1 to 2.3:1.

Why? Because of your near ZERO birth-rate.

Removing the cap on Social Security will not save it and it will not fix it.

At most, it will generate enough to pay benefits for 1 month.

For the other 11 months, well, you'll have to cut benefits by 28%-35%.

Now, notice I never said do not remove the cap. I simply said removing the cap will neither fund nor fix Social Security.

If you keep the current cap, create a donut-hole and not tax the gap between the cap and a $400,000 base-point that is adjusted upward just like the cap is adjusted upward annually, then you only need to increase the FICA Tax Rate to 8.0% to 8.2% and that will be the last increase for the next 500 years.

Overall, it's a good program and one that is worthy of support by Conservatives (and Ultra-Conservatives like me) provided we stay with the original concept and logic behind the program.

That concept and logic is that Social Security was never intended to be someone's income.

Social Security is an insurance program. That is the "I" in OASI which is Old Age and Survivor's Insurance.

It is not an investment program in spite of what morons claim and so arguments about Return-on-Investment are moronic.

Do you get a high ROI on your auto insurance? No, you don't, so get over it already.

We are all responsible for getting a retirement program through are employer, and for saving and investing for our own retirement.

When we cannot get a retirement program through our employer, it is up to us to save/invest more of our own money.

Sadly, when we are born, are Crystal Balls never function properly, so we don't always see the curve-balls that Life throws at us.

I mean, if you knew in advance that 20 years down the road your spouse was gonna take the whole planet in your divorce and leave you with nothing but your bones, you probably wouldn't have gotten married right?

I wouldn't kick a person that someone else knocks down.

But for those whose, um, you know, "pain and suffering" is self-inflicted, well, sucks to be them.

So long as Social Security remains an income supplement and doesn't turn into an income substitute, I got no problem with it.

Additionally, time to place FICA taxes on those that derive their wealth from investments also.

General Welfare Clause or not, your Constitution doesn't provide for that.

 

[Mircea]

As for your constitutional pronouncements... well, you'll forgive me for not embracing your views, since they run counter to pretty much every SCOTUS ruling on the subject (most notably Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937))

Supreme Court decisions during the FDR-era are suspect because the Court was acting under the coercion and duress of court-packing.

The purpose of the constitution was also to strengthen the federal government further than under the articles of confederation and incorporation further cements the supremacy of the federal constitution. States rights would have done nothing for civil rights.

That argument is not only irrelevant, it is just plain wrong.

The Bill of Rights never applied to the several States or to the people.

I can tell you were educated by Liberals, because you don't understand why the Constitution was needed.

Under the Articles, there was no court system; the Congress was not allowed to tax anything; the Congress had no authority to negotiate or regulate foreign commerce; there was no standing Army; each State got only one vote in Congress; the Congress had no power to regulate Interstate Commerce; and the Articles could only be amended by a unanimous vote and since that would never happen, you wouldn't have any amendments at all.

Had someone not crafted the Constitution, you would not be living in America. In fact, it's anyone's guess as to who might be your master. It could be the British, the French or even the Spanish (but I doubt Portugal would be your overlord.)

Even if you didn't have an overlord, your Standard of Living and Life-Style would be on a par with Russia as it is now.

Also, note that under the Articles, it's possible slavery might have existed in one or more States right up to the time Apartheid ended in South Africa.

 

[Cordelier]

Your math doesn't add up. Your exaggerations are grotesque.

I would remind you that it was a Republican governor who invented social security.

Yes, that's right....it's a Republican invention.

When FDR was governor of New York State, he formed a committee which borrowed elements of the social security programs in effect in other States to create a social security program for New York State.

There were 35 States with social security programs and the remaining 13 States -- yes, there were only 48 States at the time -- either had pending legislation to create social security programs or had appointed committees to study social security programs at the time FDR pulled a Castro/Mossadeq/Allende/Cardenas/Faisal/Qasim/British Government and nationalized them.

The point being -- all of your whining and sniveling aside -- whether FDR was President or not or existed or not or was dead or alive or the Ghost of Christmas past or time traveling, you'd have social security....

.....and all thanks to a Republican governor who pioneered it.

Um, okay... I wasn't trying to make this into a partisan pissing match, and I certainly never claimed that the Democratic party was the fount of all wisdom and light. Robert La Follette (I assume that was who you were referring to, since you never actually named the Republican Governor) was one of the greatest political geniuses in this country's history, and justly deserves far more credit than history has given him. I have no dispute with that at all.

Of course, it should be noted that if La Follette were still around today, he'd have absolutely no role to play whatsoever in the modern Republican party. Hell, even Dwight Eisenhower would be considered too liberal for today's Republican party.

 

[Cordelier]

Supreme Court decisions during the FDR-era are suspect because the Court was acting under the coercion and duress of court-packing.

That's a load of crap. The court-packing bill was DOA in Congress - even AFTER FDR's 1936 landslide. And the whole reason why we have lifetime Judicial positions is to insulate them from having to bow to political considerations.

 

[Mircea]

It is the scope of the power. Our defense clause cannot be any more general than our welfare clause.

That gets my vote for Most Nonsensical Statement of the Year.

I can't be wrong because that is what our Constitution says. Right-wing fantasy cannot make it mean general warfare and common offense.

Yes, that is true. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way. It promotes the general welfare not the general warfare or common offense.

The "general Welfare" Clause applies only to the United States, meaning the federal government, aka the central government.

It does not apply the several States or the people.

Put another way the "general Welfare" Clause is intended to promote the interest of the federal government and not the several States and not the people and not the United States of America.

In other words, the purpose of the "general Welfare" Clause is to keep the federal government functioning as a federal government.

This is correct--most of the political opposition to the Constitution was by the Anti-Federalist faction who were against strong central government. But that still is not any real evidence that our constitution created a strong Federal government. Good evidence exists it did not--namely that the Federal government remained relatively small and weak until the Civil War.

That's a good analysis.

The state sponsored churches were not unconstitutional until the 14th Amendment was passed, so they were entirely legal and proper.

And even then they were not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court said so in two separate decisions, one forcing States to recognize the free exercise of religion in 1940 and the other barring States from establishing a religion in 1947.

Both of those were less than 100 years ago.

The First Amendment did not apply to the States until the 14th Amendment was passed, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings "incorporated" it onto the States.

Excluding the decisions on religion, the remainder of the 1st Amendment was forced on the States as follows:

Freedom of Speech in 1925.
Freedom of the Press in 1931.
Freedom to Assemble in 1937.
Freedom to Redress Grievances in 1939.

 

[Mircea]

In the 2nd Amendment they said that a militia (basically a standing army) is necessary to the security of a free state. So, they understood that a full time army would exist.

Its the military, just the same. Claiming a difference is some serious hair splitting.

If it's a full time military force, it isn't

Great. Another military wannabe.

George Washington was invited to chair the Constitutional Convention.

Who on this forum would like to know why?

Because the States wouldn't give Washington any troops. He begged the Continental Congress for troops.

Continental Congress: Hey, Maine, you need to send a couple of militias to help Washington.
Maine: Yeah, sure, just as soon as crab season is over and then only if we see two birds in that tree over yon.
Continental Congress: Hey, South Carolina, you need to pony up a few militia regiments for Washington.
South Carolina: Yeah, we'll do that just as soon as we get the high score on Donkey Kong.

Washington only fought when he chose the time and place of battle.

Does that mean Washington read Sun Tzu's Art of War?

No, it meant Washington had half a brain at least and knew better. Picking small battles that he had high confidence he could win was one way of proving that he could end the war sooner if only he had enough troops.

And you were damn lucky.

The Brits were more interested in India which was more in line with the global territorial holdings than the Americas.

In other words, the Brits didn't care if Cornwallis won or not, and obviously you're not aware the Brits treated Cornwallis as a hero.

The French were getting ready to stomp your ass and you couldn't have done a damn thing about it. The French were already sinking or capturing your ships whenever they freaking felt like it and the kept doing that all the way to 1805 when you finally made them stop, because you had the Constitutional Republic.

If it wasn't for the Constitution, the New England States, and good chunks of New York and Pennsylvania would be French and not American.

Contrary to your claim, a militia is not a standing army, not that you know what a standing army actually is.

You also don't understand that the difference between a standing army that is under the control of the central government and one under the control of a State.

Not that it matters, since the federal government has outlawed militias and at present, the National Guards are the only authorized militias and governors have no control over the number, type, organization or location of their National Guards.

That is 100% controlled by the federal government.

If you, as governor, what a National Guard medical company because you got lots of hurricanes or tornadoes in your State and the federal government says, "Not no, but hell no!" then it sucks to be you, because you can't have one.

 

[Mircea]

So you would happily see the US postal service have competition, in all the services it offers ?



Why? Will that lead to greater efficiency ?
Do you support a command economy ?
In your opinion, if the USA had one giant shoe factory, would that be better than the situation we have now, with hundreds of places making footwear and constantly competing against each other on price and for the consumer's attention ?

Have state run monopolies ever been efficient ?
If so, please list a couple.



How does an inefficient, state run monopoly do that ?

Have you ever studied economics ?

Yeah, have you?

Apparently, you're totally oblivious to the fact that competition was not possible at the time the Postal Service was created.

There's also another issue and one that you're also not aware.

The purpose of the Postal Service was primarily to conduct federal government business.

Certainly, someone of your alleged intelligence could see why the 4th Amendment as applied to a private postal service would be a total Debbie-downer.

Surely you can see where if the Treasury Department sends a check via private postal service to the Big Friggin' Railroad and the check is lost/stolen, getting search warrants would be a hassle, but the federal government doesn't necessarily need a search warrant to investigate itself.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Your math doesn't add up. Your exaggerations are grotesque.

I would remind you that it was a Republican governor who invented social security.

Yes, that's right....it's a Republican invention.

Who are referring to ?

I am not familiar with this.

 

[wist43]

Your math doesn't add up. Your exaggerations are grotesque.

I would remind you that it was a Republican governor who invented social security.

Yes, that's right....it's a Republican invention.

When FDR was governor of New York State, he formed a committee which borrowed elements of the social security programs in effect in other States to create a social security program for New York State.

There were 35 States with social security programs and the remaining 13 States -- yes, there were only 48 States at the time -- either had pending legislation to create social security programs or had appointed committees to study social security programs at the time FDR pulled a Castro/Mossadeq/Allende/Cardenas/Faisal/Qasim/British Government and nationalized them.

The point being -- all of your whining and sniveling aside -- whether FDR was President or not or existed or not or was dead or alive or the Ghost of Christmas past or time traveling, you'd have social security....

.....and all thanks to a Republican governor who pioneered it.

https://usdebtclock.org/

Current debt is $29 trillion
Current unfunded liabilities is $161 trillion

So no, my math is not wrong.

--------------------------------

As for safety nets on the state level, I don't have a problem with that - the state level is where those types of things belong.

On the Federal level, they are wholly unconstitutional.

And sorry to burst your binary worldview, but I am not a Republican. I am a liberatarian.

The Republicrats offer a one-size-fits-all menu of corruption and government expansion. I say 'no thank you' to that.

Liberty, republican government, and federalism are options ya know??

 

[danielpalos]

It does not apply the several States or the people.

Yes, it does.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

 

[danielpalos]

As for safety nets on the state level, I don't have a problem with that - the state level is where those types of things belong.

On the Federal level, they are wholly unconstitutional.

And sorry to burst your binary worldview, but I am not a Republican. I am a liberatarian.

The Republicrats offer a one-size-fits-all menu of corruption and government expansion. I say 'no thank you' to that.

Liberty, republican government, and federalism are options ya know??

Why do you believe that? Congress is delegated the power to fix Standards for the Union, along with; 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

 

[bomberfox]

Supreme Court decisions during the FDR-era are suspect because the Court was acting under the coercion and duress of court-packing.



That argument is not only irrelevant, it is just plain wrong.

The Bill of Rights never applied to the several States or to the people.

I can tell you were educated by Liberals, because you don't understand why the Constitution was needed.

Under the Articles, there was no court system; the Congress was not allowed to tax anything; the Congress had no authority to negotiate or regulate foreign commerce; there was no standing Army; each State got only one vote in Congress; the Congress had no power to regulate Interstate Commerce; and the Articles could only be amended by a unanimous vote and since that would never happen, you wouldn't have any amendments at all.

Had someone not crafted the Constitution, you would not be living in America. In fact, it's anyone's guess as to who might be your master. It could be the British, the French or even the Spanish (but I doubt Portugal would be your overlord.)

Even if you didn't have an overlord, your Standard of Living and Life-Style would be on a par with Russia as it is now.

Also, note that under the Articles, it's possible slavery might have existed in one or more States right up to the time Apartheid ended in South Africa.

I did not argue the constitution was not needed. Those rulings under FDR are still valid according to law. The bill of rights apply to people, otherwise there is no point in having them. I can tell you were groomed by the federalist society though.

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah, have you?

Have I what ?
Come on Mr PhD, did you not need to write to get your bogus degree ?

Apparently, you're totally oblivious to the fact that competition was not possible at the time the Postal Service was created.

Apparently you're totally oblivious to the fact that we're discussing the postal service in the TWENTY-FIRST century, not the 18th.
Try to keep up.

The purpose of the Postal Service was primarily to conduct federal government business.

So what ?
Key word there is "was".

Again, try to keep up.

Certainly, someone of your alleged intelligence could see why the 4th Amendment as applied to a private postal service would be a total Debbie-downer.

Your attempts to sound educated are at best humorous, and at worst pathetic

What has the 4A got to do with the post office, and who even mentioned it ?

Surely you can see where if the Treasury Department sends a check via private postal service to the Big Friggin' Railroad and the check is lost/stolen, getting search warrants would be a hassle, but the federal government doesn't necessarily need a search warrant to investigate itself.

Obviously YOU can't
It's a CHEQUE.
If it's stolen it gets cancelled - no need for search warrants. And person stealing it has a worthless piece of paper
You're obviously unaware of how the banking system works or that companies like American Express have been issuing cheques for decades...


Those foreign governments paying you a squillion dollars an hour aren't getting value for their money are they ?

 

[danielpalos]

Apparently you're totally oblivious to the fact that we're discussing the postal service in the TWENTY-FIRST century, not the 18th.

Sure. The point is that the Postal Service generates revenue and can lower costs to the private sector (to help reduce inflationary pressures) through scale economics.

 

[Rich2018]

Sure. The point is that the Postal Service generates revenue and can lower costs to the private sector (to help reduce inflationary pressures) through scale economics.

But does the post office generate more revenue than it costs to operate ?

"In 2016, the USPS had its fifth straight annual operating loss, in the amount of $5.6 billion, of which $5.8 billion was the accrual of unpaid mandatory retiree health payments."

United States Postal Service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please can you list any examples of the post office having lower running costs than the private sector ?
How much does it cost the post office to ship a letter from one coast to another...not how much it charges, but how much it costs ?

I await your data.

 

[danielpalos]

But does the post office generate more revenue than it costs to operate ?

"In 2016, the USPS had its fifth straight annual operating loss, in the amount of $5.6 billion, of which $5.8 billion was the accrual of unpaid mandatory retiree health payments."

United States Postal Service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please can you list any examples of the post office having lower running costs than the private sector ?
How much does it cost the post office to ship a letter from one coast to another...not how much it charges, but how much it costs ?

I await your data.

The Postal Service is a secret giant, generating about $71 billion in annual sales, including $23 billion in parcel revenue during 2019. UPS had about $76 billion in sales and $46 billion in U.S. package revenue over that span, while the numbers for FedEx are $69 billion and $48 billion.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why do you believe that? Congress is delegated the power to fix Standards for the Union, along with; 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

Hunh ?

Your response has nothing to do with this post.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I did not argue the constitution was not needed. Those rulings under FDR are still valid according to law. The bill of rights apply to people, otherwise there is no point in having them. I can tell you were groomed by the federalist society though.

The Bill of Rights was a constraint on the Federal Government.

Many state constitutions have the same things written in them (which tells you that they didn't see them as incorporated).

And many (including myself) argue that incorporation is a bogus doctrine.

The SCOTUS forced it on us...we can unforce it in time.