I pay %37 of my paycheck to taxes...

[Filipino.Cowboy]

Your forgot one thing.

The Government is Mandated to protect its citizens.

You carefully chose your words there...the feds are "allowed" to collect taxes, "allowed" to spend that money, yet you said Congress and the Government are not "mandated" to spend a % of money towards defense and war. You could just have easily said, "The Feds are not Mandated to collect a ridiculous amount of taxes. Congress is not Mandated to spend all of the money and more than they collected. And Congress is mandated to provide funds in the defense of our country. It's all in how you (not specifically you) twist the words. Truth is, the government is here to provide for the common defense, not social security (which my generation will never see), not medicare (who is the biggest denier of coverage than all of the insurance companies combined).

 

[AndyLL]

Your forgot one thing.

The Government is Mandated to protect its citizens.

Everywhere the constitution says 'provide for the common Defence' it also says 'provide for the common general Welfare'

There is just as much mandate for the government to provide social programs for the people as there are for defense.

On top of that most of the founding fathers would be shocked at the idea of a proactive, offensive, large federal military. Many wanted no standing army at all.

You carefully chose your words there...the feds are "allowed" to collect taxes, "allowed" to spend that money, yet you said Congress and the Government are not "mandated" to spend a % of money towards defense and war.

Many Cons these days state that the specific spending by the Fed Gov't is unconstitutional. Just pointing out that they are wrong.

Truth is, the government is here to provide for the common defense, not social security (which my generation will never see), not medicare (who is the biggest denier of coverage than all of the insurance companies combined).

As I have shown the government is here to also provide for the common welfare... i.e. social programs that the Gov't feels are better provided at a federal level.

This has been reafirmed by the courts for 100s of years. ( there have been anti-federalists for as long as our country has been around )

And you really ought to quit using SS and Medicare as your examples. While not perfect they one of the few major programs that have specific funding and have been in the black every year.

 

[Crude]

Good lord, I don't know where to start with that mess....lets start with...social programs are programs where you take from a group of people and give to others. Just because they are funded by taxes designated for that purpose doesn't mean they aren't social programs. I guess that knocks over your house of cards so I'm done. Oh but wait, they aren't in the black as the government borrowed heavily against them and thus couldn't earn the interest to keep them in the black. It's now only a matter of time before they are wiped out...unless we raise tax on these social programs.

I love the games people play to look right. I mean lets take away the largest chunk of the social programs and put them in a different category.

I personally am very bitter that anyone gets free money for the poor choices they make....and make no mistake that's the majority of the recipients.

 

[Isthmus]

Alright for all those arguing against social programs of any sort, here is a hypothetical example that happens in real life every day:

Parents (of all types and income levels) make poor choices and end up arrested for a period of time. Their children must be looked after while their parents are imprisoned. what do you suggest be done?

Keep in mind that housing them with family members is not all ways possible or viable.

Should the kids be housed in the same jail with their parents?
should they be put out on the street?
Should localities invest in large scale inexpensive orphanages?
Should localities invest in large scale self financing work houses?
Is it the government's place to do anything at all?

Here is another example.

an adult is imprisoned and he is now released into the general population. Is it in the interest of the state do anything at all to help that person integrate back into society?

here is another:

Financial malaise causes entire industries to collapse in a specific region. This causes large numbers of people to be out of work. should the government use discretionary funds to try to alleviate the effects of the downturn on the population; help the region adapt to change; entice other industries to relocate to the area; or should they do nothing at all?

______________________________________________________

All these are hypothetical examples based on real life choices that local state and national governments the world over face every single day. We can argue for the power of free unfettered markets, but lets not forget that completely unfettered markets have the bad habit of becoming predatory an innefficient. As it applies to government discretionary spending, be it social or corporate welfare, often times the choice to invest is social welfare is intentionally done so as to avoid higher costs later down the line. I'm not saying that this is the case for every discretionary spending program (Earmarks for example, are a particularly wasteful practice). My point is that we can't simply strip away all kinds of discretionary social spending and leave it up to markets to sort everything out.

 

[clutchy]

Everywhere the constitution says 'provide for the common Defence' it also says 'provide for the common general Welfare'

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...

replace provide with promote there's a huge difference, and if you've been operating under the previous guise i suggest you read up on what promote the general welfare means.

here's to wishing you some interesting reading. I'd also like you to reexamine your political belief structure in light of this new reading.

I used to be so far to the right that i couldn't even see the left, but recently(within the last few years) i've started moving left and i think there's alot of room to learn if you're willing to see the other side.

I know i've learned alot by not blindly spewing ideological nonsense. Evaluate things for what they are and not how you think they should fit into your agenda.

 

[AndyLL]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...

replace provide with promote there's a huge difference, and if you've been operating under the previous guise i suggest you read up on what promote the general welfare means.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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


Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I'm not the one that needs to read. Specified at the same level as defense is.

I used to be so far to the right that i couldn't even see the left, but recently(within the last few years) i've started moving left and i think there's alot of room to learn if you're willing to see the other side.

I used to be a 'fiscal' conservative. I voted for Bush. I listened to Rush during the Clinton years. What moved me left was the internet. I was able to research the raw numbers myself. I could read CBO reports directly. I could view budget numbers straight from the Government. I realized how much I'd lied to about Republican economic policies.

I know i've learned alot by not blindly spewing ideological nonsense. Evaluate things for what they are and not how you think they should fit into your agenda.

One you start making commments that the constitution only allows for military spending and not social spending you are blindly spewing ideological nonsense.

 

[clutchy]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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


Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I'm not the one that needs to read. Specified at the same level as defense is.

interesting, i have to say i'm kindof shocked. I was referencing the preamble, but this should be an interesting read.

I used to be a 'fiscal' conservative. I voted for Bush. I listened to Rush during the Clinton years. What moved me left was the internet. I was able to research the raw numbers myself. I could read CBO reports directly. I could view budget numbers straight from the Government. I realized how much I'd lied to about Republican economic policies.

yeah um... it's disturbing to say the least.

One you start making commments that the constitution only allows for military spending and not social spending you are blindly spewing ideological nonsense.

i wasn't making that argument.

 

[McGarrett]

$2 trillion on Iraq, interest on $13 trillion in debt, etc. It adds up after a while.

Cut all the "social programs" you like, it won't balance the budget. Not even close.

 

[Filipino.Cowboy]

No one said it will. I think though what can be agreed on is that both the majority of Democrat and Republican party politicians are ridiculously corrupt. There's pork on both sides of the aisle. Pet projects here and there. A good example is John Murtha's little airport he allocated big bucks to that got only a few flights a week (or something like that ). Stuff like that definitely needs to STOP.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Barbarianism FTW!

Let the poor suffer and die

Lets face it - they are not real people

 

[mike114]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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

It always amazes me that people who support welfare as it is today and then claim Article 1, Section 8 backs up their ridiculous claims. Since you earlier posted the link for the Constitution, why didn't you quote the entire Section?? Could it be because that there are enumerated powers which limit what congress can use tax money for?

All federal gov't entitlement spending needs to stop if it isn't one of the enumerated powers. Now will you do the honest thing and post the rest of the Section as it is written, or should we ridicule you for thinking that somehow the "General Welfare" clause actually means welfare??

 

[OfTheDamned]

Barbarianism FTW!

Let the poor suffer and die

Lets face it - they are not real people

You should probably read about the Fair Tax before you make comments.

 

[mike114]

You should probably read about the Fair Tax before you make comments.

I am a huge supporter of the Fair Tax, but that is something the elites in Washington would never go for. It would transfer power back to the people where it belongs. If they ever do pass a Fair Tax, they should also pass a Constitutional amendment keeping it at a set rate and any changes to that rate would require another amendment. And a balanced budget act would also be some wishful thinking since now we are creating a Christmas list.

People who criticize the FT have not read it or have any idea how it would work. They see a 20%-22% tax on everything and then their economic ignorance becomes apparent.

 

[Rotary]

yeah they tax breathing so they keep the air clean. not like nasty FREE air...

 

[mike114]

$2 trillion on Iraq, interest on $13 trillion in debt, etc. It adds up after a while.

Cut all the "social programs" you like, it won't balance the budget. Not even close.

I'm sorry, but your figures are a bit off. The correct answer is, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $709 billion. Now that's still a lot of money, but compared to entitlement spending, it's not close.

We do spend an enormous amount of money on the military and the DoD and I agree, that needs to be reduced. We can have a strong, modern military and save billions on waste. The USA accounts for 48% of ALL military spending in the world. That's a ridiculous amount of money. Time to stop policing the world and let our allies start defending themselves and let them spend more on their militaries.

 

[AndyLL]

It always amazes me that people who support welfare as it is today and then claim Article 1, Section 8 backs up their ridiculous claims. Since you earlier posted the link for the Constitution, why didn't you quote the entire Section?? Could it be because that there are enumerated powers which limit what congress can use tax money for?

You mean like this claus?

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

I think we've gone over the 2 year mark. LOL

And yes... this line is one of the enumerated powers:

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

No one (but you I guess) equates general welfare to the welfare programs such as food stamps ( true welfare programs are a tiny part of the budget)

General welfare relates to programs that the federal government has deemed is best done at a federal level because they span state bounderies. Things like: transportation, national parks, research programs, enviournmental issues, regulation of business, ect.

Section 9 limits what Congress can do and sorry... that section does not restrict congress only to the enumerated powers in section 8.

I know it's a tough pill to swallow but if it isn't prohibited in section 9 Congress can do just about anything it wants and it'll be constitutional.

 

[copestag]

You mean like this claus?

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

I think we've gone over the 2 year mark. LOL

incorrect... no funding for the current war has been for any term longer than 2 years.... thats why they continiously have to vote for more money

Section 9 limits what Congress can do and sorry... that section does not restrict congress only to the enumerated powers in section 8.

I know it's a tough pill to swallow but if it isn't prohibited in section 9 Congress can do just about anything it wants and it'll be constitutional.

also incorrect... 10th Amendment:

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

section 9 isnt a complete list of things that cant be done its just a list of specific things that cant be done.....

10th clearly states that if the constitution doesnt specifically grant a power then they do not have that power........ very liberal misinterpretations of the Constitution are the only reason they get away with so much

 

[mike114]

You beat me to the punch copestag. That pesky 10th Amendment which is largely ignored by politicians on both sides should be enforced. If the states had any guts, the would begin nullifying laws that are clearly unConstitutional.

It also amazes me that people actually believe that the Constitution is an invitation for the government to do basically anything it wants. The people and the States gave the government it's power, not the other way around. I can't understand how people would think the Founders would somehow want a centralized government to regulate everything including national parks and environmental issues. Give me a break.

 

[AndyLL]

incorrect... no funding for the current war has been for any term longer than 2 years.... thats why they continiously have to vote for more money





also incorrect... 10th Amendment:

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

section 9 isnt a complete list of things that cant be done its just a list of specific things that cant be done.....

10th clearly states that if the constitution doesnt specifically grant a power then they do not have that power........ very liberal misinterpretations of the Constitution are the only reason they get away with so much

Raising money is granted by the constitution. Spending money is granted by the constituion.

The right of the federal government (granted in the constition) to override states in matters of commerce makes the 10th amendment almost worthless.

That's why the number of laws overturned because of the 10th amendment can be counted on one hand.

 

[copestag]

Raising money is granted by the constitution. Spending money is granted by the constituion.

The right of the federal government (granted in the constition) to override states in matters of commerce makes the 10th amendment almost worthless.

That's why the number of laws overturned because of the 10th amendment can be counted on one hand.

you missed the last line of my post...... "very liberal misinterpretations of the Constitution are the only reason they get away with so much"

Thats why the number of abuses in the name of the commerce clause which have been overturned require a calculator to count

 

[byteware]

Social security and M/M are not discretionary social programs. They are programs funded by their own taxes. They're run a surplus every year. They are fully funded until 2039 and that's without taking into account the IOUs they hold.

They've already dipped into the red THIS year, and the Treasury doesn't have enough money to pay back those IOU's, so that money is gone.

Since we pay directly into the fund and expect to receive benefits in the future from the fund they are not classified as discretionary.

Most honest people would classify the 'social programs' as those such as welfare, foodstamps, school meals, section 8 housing, EIC...

Your the first person on this thread to use the word "discretionary".

 

[byteware]

Alright for all those arguing against social programs of any sort, here is a hypothetical example that happens in real life every day:

Parents (of all types and income levels) make poor choices and end up arrested for a period of time. Their children must be looked after while their parents are imprisoned. what do you suggest be done?

Keep in mind that housing them with family members is not all ways possible or viable.

Should the kids be housed in the same jail with their parents?
should they be put out on the street?
Should localities invest in large scale inexpensive orphanages?
Should localities invest in large scale self financing work houses?
Is it the government's place to do anything at all?

Here is another example.

an adult is imprisoned and he is now released into the general population. Is it in the interest of the state do anything at all to help that person integrate back into society?

here is another:

Financial malaise causes entire industries to collapse in a specific region. This causes large numbers of people to be out of work. should the government use discretionary funds to try to alleviate the effects of the downturn on the population; help the region adapt to change; entice other industries to relocate to the area; or should they do nothing at all?

______________________________________________________

All these are hypothetical examples based on real life choices that local state and national governments the world over face every single day. We can argue for the power of free unfettered markets, but lets not forget that completely unfettered markets have the bad habit of becoming predatory an innefficient. As it applies to government discretionary spending, be it social or corporate welfare, often times the choice to invest is social welfare is intentionally done so as to avoid higher costs later down the line. I'm not saying that this is the case for every discretionary spending program (Earmarks for example, are a particularly wasteful practice). My point is that we can't simply strip away all kinds of discretionary social spending and leave it up to markets to sort everything out.

So, if we are against Social Programs, we should disband the courts? Housing and caring for Orphans is a necessity. It's not a social program.

 

[byteware]

$2 trillion on Iraq, interest on $13 trillion in debt, etc. It adds up after a while.

Cut all the "social programs" you like, it won't balance the budget. Not even close.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare WOULDN'T balance the budget? Really?

I'm not advocating that we should cut them... but yeah, they would balance the budget quickly.

 

[byteware]

You beat me to the punch copestag. That pesky 10th Amendment which is largely ignored by politicians on both sides should be enforced. If the states had any guts, the would begin nullifying laws that are clearly unConstitutional.

It also amazes me that people actually believe that the Constitution is an invitation for the government to do basically anything it wants. The people and the States gave the government it's power, not the other way around. I can't understand how people would think the Founders would somehow want a centralized government to regulate everything including national parks and environmental issues. Give me a break.

The Civil War basically gutted the 10th amendment, unfortunately.

Also, the Federal government gets away with alot of what they pass by requirements for funding.

They tax the residents of a State, and hold that money from the State unless the State government does what the Federal Government wants them to.

This should be unconstitutional. If they want to put strings on money from Texas, when they give it to another state, that's one thing, but until they have crossed the threshold of the amount of money they collected from a state, they shouldn't be able to put strings on that money giving it back to that state.

 

[byteware]

Raising money is granted by the constitution. Spending money is granted by the constituion.

The right of the federal government (granted in the constition) to override states in matters of commerce makes the 10th amendment almost worthless.

That's why the number of laws overturned because of the 10th amendment can be counted on one hand.

2 things.

1) They only have authority on INTERSTATE commerce

2) The Federal government doesn't actually pass laws on anything and everything. They pass funding (say Highway construction funding) with strings (say Motorcycle helmet laws). IF you don't fulfill the strings (like passing motorcycle helmet laws) then you don't get the funding.