US Forces....

I don't think Arafat would do a good Ringo stand-in now.  He died Nov. 11, 2004.  

Ringo is still alive and is obviously "proud" of his shows.  (At Birmingham's Concert Hall, Feb. 15th, it is $106 for nosebleed to $1375 for front row.)

Eric wrote:

And many people have never been sick a day in their lives, Eddard.  It's not fair that they should be forced to subsidize medical insurance for others if they choose not to do so.

   

I disagree completely based on scripture.
You may not be required to but Christ compels that followers care, and that they even give when there is absolutely nothing in it for them.
I don't mind one bit subsidizing medical insurance for other Americans. Outside the scriptural, decent healthcare is a human rights issue.

I also don't mind paying for the roads, the public schools (even if teachers have unions), the fire department when I don't use them, or for any other public service that is necessary for  a decent society. Matter of fact, I've never phoned the fire department in my life. I've always given, even if they were volunteers, because I admire the help they have given others. I didn't object when it became mandatory for me to pay the fire department from my house taxes, because I'd been doing it already. It's part of living in a country where basic safeguards are necessary for society to continue.

The estimates say that 26,000 Americans died a year because they did not have insurance, and thus NO PREVENTATIVE care at all prior to Obamacare.
That is not acceptable in any humane society. It's also not acceptable in most of the other civilized countries in our world. It's easier to get medical care in Cuba than it is here in the US if you are working and  poor. That's a shame.

I don't feel like all my money is necessarily my money. Living in a society with a decent "general welfare"  is important to  me so I believe in supporting it.
It's not just scriptural, it's also Constitutional. Our government is supposed to "promote the general welfare" just like they are to "provide for the common defense."
It's even in the same sentence.

mediawatcher wrote:

Eric wrote:

And many people have never been sick a day in their lives, Eddard.  It's not fair that they should be forced to subsidize medical insurance for others if they choose not to do so.

    Think back.....in earlier years was healthcare a top priority?.....If this had been imposed when most of us were much younger would we have been so accepting about financing healthcare for a bunch of 'old geezers'?....Factoring in of what are perceptions of age were then and are current ages....gulp...we are the 'old geezers'!...And it's still not right to burden others....

Hey, if it's not right to burden others then the only thing folks  can do with all us old geezers when we get sick  is just to take us out into the woods and let us die. According to your thinking, it's absolutely unacceptable that young taxpayers should  support a 90 something year old person who is blind and in a wheelchair. Just better to tell her she's a burden and throw her out.

Especially if she never was able to afford even a medicare supplement so the hospitals have to absorb some of the costs. Why, they pass those costs onto us? And she might not have ever worked a day in her life, just a housewife. Not even doing her part in paying for medicare.

Toss 'em out, kick 'em to the curb. They're nothing but burdens and drags on society.  We don't owe them a darned thing, it's not "fair" that we support them.

How DARE they be a burden !!!! Like you say, "it's still not right to burden others."

There is such a thing as separation of Church and State.  

What I do for my fellow man should be done, and is done, by me, of my own volition.  Not mandated by Big Brother.

America wasn't founded as a Socialist Society, where the populace donates their all for the public good.

Eddard, the "General Welfare" clause does not imply general welfare to the citizens.  It is for welfare and defense of the United States of America as a country.  Scholars generally agree that the "General Welfare" clause enables the USA to levy taxes on it's citizens to allow for administration and defense of the country.

See this article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

EDIT:  Y'know, Eddard, that you could do a WHOLE lot better with your discretionary income by giving to local charities such as the Waterfront Mission, Catholic Charities, Manna Food Bank, etc., where there are not multiple levels of Federal and State bureaucracy, with fatcats taking their cut before it gets to those in need.

I don't mind you spending your discretionary income on the poor.   I also give to the poor, the food banks, and the charity thrift shops.

But forcing others to surrender their hard-earned money to give to the poor like Robin Hood... because you think it is a good idea, is wrong... just plain wrong.

By all means, give until it hurts, it should make you feel better.  And that is a good thing.

Eric wrote:

Eddard, the "General Welfare" clause does not imply general welfare to the citizens.  It is for welfare and defense of the United States of America as a country.  Scholars generally agree that the "General Welfare" clause enables the USA to levy taxes on it's citizens to allow for administration and defense of the country.

See this article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

EDIT:  Y'know, Eddard, that you could do a WHOLE lot better with your discretionary income by giving to local charities such as the Waterfront Mission, Catholic Charities, Manna Food Bank, etc., where there are not multiple levels of Federal and State bureaucracy, with fatcats taking their cut before it gets to those in need.

I don't mind you spending your discretionary income on the poor.   I also give to the poor, the food banks, and the charity thrift shops.

But forcing others to surrender their hard-earned money to give to the poor like Robin Hood... because you think it is a good idea, is wrong... just plain wrong.

By all means, give until it hurts, it should make you feel better.  And that is a good thing.

There's just something when the words 'mandate' and 'rights' are used to force bad legislation down the throats of citizens...Americans are very charitable but a majority can still smell a stinker in this healthcare fiasco....

Eric wrote:

Eddard, the "General Welfare" clause does not imply general welfare to the citizens.  It is for welfare and defense of the United States of America as a country.  Scholars generally agree that the "General Welfare" clause enables the USA to levy taxes on it's citizens to allow for administration and defense of the country.

See this article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

EDIT:  Y'know, Eddard, that you could do a WHOLE lot better with your discretionary income by giving to local charities such as the Waterfront Mission, Catholic Charities, Manna Food Bank, etc., where there are not multiple levels of Federal and State bureaucracy, with fatcats taking their cut before it gets to those in need.

I don't mind you spending your discretionary income on the poor.   I also give to the poor, the food banks, and the charity thrift shops.

But forcing others to surrender their hard-earned money to give to the poor like Robin Hood... because you think it is a good idea, is wrong... just plain wrong.

By all means, give until it hurts, it should make you feel better.  And that is a good thing.

Eric, there are also a lot of scholars who believe that the general welfare refers to the general welfare of the American populace. Since we cannot go back and question the founders, I think your interpretation is  just a matter of what your political beliefs are. I do give discretionary income to the poor directly, but I also do not object to my taxes being used to enhance the general welfare of all Americans that need it. Robin Hood is actually a very popular character in history, btw.  Not too many people out there taking the Sheriff of Nottingham's side in that tale. Providing for the common defense was already mentioned in that passage, so there's no reason I can think of to believe "promoting the general welfare" has a thing in the world to do with raising taxes for defense. I believe it refers to government needing to establish educational institutions. build our roads, fund our police and fire departments, insure that our public utilities are working properly, and yes, even assuring that Americans who can't afford health care can have access to it. That was certainly FDR's way of thinking.
That was the general thinking of most Americans back in the first half of the 20th century and seemed to be the thinking of most Americans until around the time Ronald Reagan came into power. Even Nixon established the EPA- that's certainly a "general welfare" type of agency. RR was a great speaker and he  changed American's way of thinking, and I don't believe it was for the better. I'm guessing you do. I'll tell you what, I have no desire to go back in time to a point where water was not clean enough to drink, where kids worked 12 hours a day in sweat shops, and where there was no public healthcare system to see that everyone was vaccinated against smallpox.

BTW, that Wikipedia article begins by saying it "has some issues."
Doesn't sound to me like it's too certain  of itself. It does mention that Hamiltonian and the Jeffersonian views of the clause were quite different.

I guess things haven't changed much today.

Eddard, I will concede that there are those that believe that the General Welfare clause should be interpreted to allow taxation for purposes beyond preservation of the Federal Government.  The founding fathers intended that the General Welfare Clause was to allow for funding to preserve the United States.   The preamble of the Constitution reads in part: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . . provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare ... do ordain and establish this Constitution ...... "Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 1. The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States

Here are a few discussions on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

Quote :

....the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10]

...In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[13][14]...

....James Madison explained his "narrow" construction of the clause in Federalist No. 41: "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

...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]...

Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

And this link from the Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

Quote :

The grant of power to “provide . . . for the general welfare” raises a two–fold question: How may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.

The scope of the national spending power was brought before the Supreme Court at least five times prior to 1936, but the Court disposed of four of the suits without construing the “general welfare” clause. In the Pacific Railway Cases (California v. Pacific Railroad Co.)538 and Smith v. Kansas City Title Co.,539 it affirmed the power of Congress to construct internal improvements, and to charter and purchase the capital stock of federal land banks, by reference to the powers of the National Government over commerce, and post roads and fiscal operations, and to its war powers. Decisions on the merits were withheld in two other cases, Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon,540 on the ground that neither a State nor an individual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against an alleged unconstitutional appropriation of national funds. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry.,541 however, the Court had invoked “the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare”542 to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.

Finally, in United States v. Butler,543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of[p.155]power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

(Here is something I found that supports YOUR argument- unemployment)...Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to “purchase compliance” with regulations “of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.”545 Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,546 which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy[p.156]of the States,” the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation “to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,”547 since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury. The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax “if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.”548

And the National Law Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304451/limiting-general-welfare-clause-andrew-c-mccarthy

Quote :

Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.” He successfully persuaded George Washington to adopt this construction during the first presidential administration. Yet it was widely rejected. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution denied a Hamiltonian proposal to include a provision authorizing the federal government to spend public funds on internal improvements. Most presidential administrations, moreover, recognized that Hamilton’s construction of the general welfare could, as James K. Polk’s crystal ball warned, “absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into a hopeless indebtedness.”

...Second is the position that is generally credited to James Madison but was shared by Thomas Jefferson — the one I believe is correct. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers. Those powers include many things: declaring war, raising armed forces, regulating interstate and international commerce, establishing post offices and the lower federal courts, etc. But they do not include welfare-state programs.

...President James Monroe understood the existential danger of Hamilton’s no-limits approach. Still, as John Eastman explains, he was unwilling to adopt Madison’s strict limitations. His middle position was that the concept of “general welfare” did not restrict Congress to section 8’s enumerated powers, but it did contain its own restriction — the word general.

Spending, he inferred, had to be for the general welfare: It could not be a redistribution of wealth strictly for the benefit of local or regional interests; it had to accomplish some legitimate national interest.

....In the 1936 Butler case, the Supreme Court purported to adopt the Monroe middle way, although it relied on Hamilton as its principal guide. That was prescient, because what we’ve ended up with really is Hamilton’s boundless behemoth. The Court has left it to Congress itself to decide the parameters and needs of the “general welfare.” This is odd. The justices have not hesitated to prescribe objective metrics for assessing the legitimacy of such congressional exercises as the imposition of conditions on states receiving federal funds, and even — as we saw in the Obamacare ruling — the regulation of interstate commerce. Yet, when it comes to the general welfare, on deciding what is a proper federal expenditure, Congress has been left on its own. Today’s profligate spending and cavernous debt, to be followed in short order by tomorrow’s Taxmageddon, is the resulting nightmare come true.

As Professor Eastman notes, even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — not exactly a limited-government scold — recognized that “if the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality . . . is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress . . . to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This . . . was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.” Ironically, she was contending (in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent) that this was not what the Butler Court intended. It is, alas, what the Butler Court wrought.

Another opinion that supports YOUR argument.The decision to uphold Obamacare was a shameful subordination of good constitutional law to Chief Justice John Roberts’s worries about the vulnerabilities of the Court and his legacy to the Left’s otherwise certain tirade. Nevertheless, the Court can hardly be blamed for omitting serious consideration of potential limits on Congress’s spending power. Put aside that Obamacare was legislated as an exercise of Commerce Clause power and substantially litigated as a Commerce Clause case — before 10:15 Thursday morning, outside a stray left-leaning commentator or two who wanted the law upheld regardless of how it had been presented to the public, no one but Roberts seems to have seen it as a tax case. The point is that, for three-quarters of a century, no limits on “general welfare” have been recognized, so no weighty arguments for narrowing Congress’s tax-and-spend authority have been offered

Read a bunch of articles, Eddard, and I believe that you will see that the majority of scholars agree that the General Welfare clause was intended to be limited in scope for the welfare of the United States... not welfare of the citizens. That is what I have seen, and quoted above, including a few dissenting opinions as outlined above.

Well, how about this clause, not from the Constitution but definitely from another prominent source:


32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.



Here's a thought- that first scripture says he will gather before him all "nations." It does not speak of all individuals, but of all nations. Churches have chosen to interpret it that way, but God proved he has favorites when it comes to nations- supposedly he favors Israel above everybody else. So to be the devil's advocate here, and I don't think I'm stretching it too far, suppose that scripture means exactly what it says? That nations of people will be judged by how they treated the weakest among them of their citizens.
I definitely believe that it is the job of the government to look to the needs of its citizens, and not just use taxation to fund eternal warfare on other countries. You and I won't agree on this one, I'm sure. But I'm just as sure I'm right as you are that you are right.

I didn't read because it isn't relative to the United States Constitution... what we are talking about here.

I will say that I am a practicing Christian, give to the church, to charities, to those in need, etc.

This thread isn't a discussion of the good things in the Holy Bible, though.

LOL, Whatever.

Like I said, I am as sure I am right as you are sure  you are to be right.

I cannot separate my religion from my politics because they are both a part of who I think I ought to be. Not necessarily who I am, but definitely a part of who I think I ought to be..

There is nothing wrong with applying the principles of the bible to your life.

I admire that.

Thank you. I just wish we could agree on more things.