4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
For Ishmael, Col Hogan and Byron*
- Thread starter 4est_4est_Gump
- Start date
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Good read, and the points re. the 'general welfare' and judiciary are well taken. Jefferson came to believe that the judiciary represented the greatest threat to liberty and expansion of federal power. Perhaps he was prescient in the gradual shift from Constitutional Law to law by precedent.
My thoughts are that the 'general welfare' clause provided the government the excuse to extend its tentacles into every facet of the citizens lives while the judiciary provided the legitimacy for the government to do so.
It must be noted though how much of those "Englishman's Rights" are no longer operable in England. So the Bill of Rights cannot be said to have provided no protections.
Ishmael
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
We've seen it argued too many times over the years that "General Welfare" means safety net.
Ouija says: YES
Ouija says: YES
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
We've seen it argued too many times over the years that "General Welfare" means safety net.
Ouija says: YES
Yup. But even Madison argued against the interpretation we've seen implemented by the legislature and legitimized by the courts. The omission of that clause alone would have made a world of difference.
Ishmael
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Poor Cap'n Hypocrite, still trying to garner some semblance of legitimacy by invoking the long dead.
As for the reason article, It's all supposition based on the work of another by someone who never knew or met those he tries to speak for or extrapolate from.
This is typical of the RW scree spread across the "conservative" low information network. This is what *I* think and here is why *I* think the framers would believe the same. This ranks right up there with Lincoln was a Republican, ignoring the fact that he would neither recongnize nor agree with the Republicans of today.
But it sounds so good to your ears to attempt to try your causes to his name. Byron would slap the dog shit out of you.
As for the reason article, It's all supposition based on the work of another by someone who never knew or met those he tries to speak for or extrapolate from.
This is typical of the RW scree spread across the "conservative" low information network. This is what *I* think and here is why *I* think the framers would believe the same.
This ranks right up there with Lincoln was a Republican, ignoring the fact that he would neither recongnize nor agree with the Republicans of today.But it sounds so good to your ears to attempt to try your causes to his name. Byron would slap the dog shit out of you.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,756
Poor Cap'n Hypocrite, still trying to garner some semblance of legitimacy by invoking the long dead.
As for the reason article, It's all supposition based on the work of another by someone who never knew or met those he tries to speak for or extrapolate from.
This is typical of the RW scree spread across the "conservative" low information network. This is what *I* think and here is why *I* think the framers would believe the same.
But it sounds so good to your ears to attempt to try your causes to his name. Byron would slap the dog shit out of you.
They've invested countless hours in attempting to create a philosophical framework that rationalizes their "fuck the poor" rhetoric.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
M
miles
Guest
No doubt.
Byron's fan bois have shown up...
Rob loves it when UD buttfucks him wearing one of his superhero costumes.
"Deeper, Spidey deeper."
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,756
Anyone else notice the increasing number of homo fantasies in Miles' posts lately?.
כוס אמאכ
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
It's a link to the Bible
1. For someone who chastises others for using gay slurs as half-ass insults, you do it quite a bit, Cap'n Hypocrite, Jr. I gues your safe hear since so many have your pappy on iggy.
2. It's not Spiderman in UD's av, you ignorant fucktard.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Straight for the lowest common bigoted denominator huh miles? Honestly, it's not surprising. Probably a mixture of self-loathing and projection.
Being the on call pivot man for the little right wing circle jerk seems to have gotten you down on yourself.
Don't worry ,miles, nobody thinks any less of you, that simply wouldn't be possible.
Also, fuck off and die in a fire.
Being the on call pivot man for the little right wing circle jerk seems to have gotten you down on yourself.
Don't worry ,miles, nobody thinks any less of you, that simply wouldn't be possible.
Also, fuck off and die in a fire.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You don't even have to go back that far.....Reagan.
He was also a fuckin' stoner and would have been totally disgusted with they tyrannical control freak "lock up as many non violent people as we can!! Rich guys need a gubbmint check!!" nature of today's GOP.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause
A general welfare clause is a section that appeared in many constitutions, as well as in some charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare. In some countries, this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to legislate or regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
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. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
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.”
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good
In philosophy, ethics, and political science the common good (also common wealth or common weal) is a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community.
The good that is common between person C and person B may not be the same as between person A and person C. Thus the common good can often change, although there are some things — such as the basic requirements for staying alive: food, water, and shelter — that are always good for all people.
Another definition of the common good, as the quintessential goal of the state, requires an admission of the individual's basic right in society, which is, namely, the right of everyone to the opportunity to freely shape his life by responsible action, in pursuit of virtue and in accordance with the moral law. The common good, then, is the sum total of the conditions of social life which enable people the more easily and straightforwardly to do so. The object of State sovereignty is the free choice of means for creating these conditions. Others, in particular John Rawls, make the distinction between the Good, that is actively creating a better world however that may be defined, and the Just, which creates a fair, liberal social infrastructure that allows the pursuit of virtue, but does not prescribe what the common good actually is.
Some assert that promoting the common good is the goal of democracy (in the sphere of politics) and socialism (in the sphere of economics).
As regards contemporary American politics, the language of the common good (sometimes referred to as "public wealth") is increasingly being adopted by political actors of the progressive left to describe their values. Jonathan Dolhenty argues that one should distinguish between the common good, which may "be shared wholly by each individual in the family without its becoming a private good for any individual family member", and the collective good, which, "though possessed by all as a group, is not really participated in by the members of a group. It is actually divided up into several private goods when apportioned to the different individual members."
A general welfare clause is a section that appeared in many constitutions, as well as in some charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare. In some countries, this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to legislate or regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
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. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
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.”
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good
In philosophy, ethics, and political science the common good (also common wealth or common weal) is a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community.
The good that is common between person C and person B may not be the same as between person A and person C. Thus the common good can often change, although there are some things — such as the basic requirements for staying alive: food, water, and shelter — that are always good for all people.
Another definition of the common good, as the quintessential goal of the state, requires an admission of the individual's basic right in society, which is, namely, the right of everyone to the opportunity to freely shape his life by responsible action, in pursuit of virtue and in accordance with the moral law. The common good, then, is the sum total of the conditions of social life which enable people the more easily and straightforwardly to do so. The object of State sovereignty is the free choice of means for creating these conditions. Others, in particular John Rawls, make the distinction between the Good, that is actively creating a better world however that may be defined, and the Just, which creates a fair, liberal social infrastructure that allows the pursuit of virtue, but does not prescribe what the common good actually is.
Some assert that promoting the common good is the goal of democracy (in the sphere of politics) and socialism (in the sphere of economics).
As regards contemporary American politics, the language of the common good (sometimes referred to as "public wealth") is increasingly being adopted by political actors of the progressive left to describe their values. Jonathan Dolhenty argues that one should distinguish between the common good, which may "be shared wholly by each individual in the family without its becoming a private good for any individual family member", and the collective good, which, "though possessed by all as a group, is not really participated in by the members of a group. It is actually divided up into several private goods when apportioned to the different individual members."
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Yes. Jefferson's statement about laying taxes to benefit the welfare of the union is clearly him advocating the dole.
Always fascinating that rights of the people to keep and bear arms means the right of the State to control who gets arms, but the right of the State to tax for the benefit of the establishing and needs of establishing and maintaining the State means individuals have the right individually to be supported at the expense of another's labor.
I realize that the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is how they view the role of government but the way that liberals justify what it is they want to do suggest that they should have their own legion of chiropractics
Always fascinating that rights of the people to keep and bear arms means the right of the State to control who gets arms, but the right of the State to tax for the benefit of the establishing and needs of establishing and maintaining the State means individuals have the right individually to be supported at the expense of another's labor.
I realize that the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is how they view the role of government but the way that liberals justify what it is they want to do suggest that they should have their own legion of chiropractics
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,321
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
So this is your justification for 'freeloaders?' Commerce replaced by welfare?
Ishmael
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,321
It's not a justification for freeloaders. There is no justification for them but the reality is they are a smaller number than we are sold on them being. And they are a natural effect of society. There is no replacement of commerce either, that's part of the whole gig.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,756
Commerce and welfare are not mutually exclusive, parasite.
The US economy does just fine and you get your fucking government check each month without fail.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
The numbers are in the millions and the costs in the billions. From SSI to SNAP to Wic and more. A great deal of that is fraudulent as well. Estimates run as high as 25%. (I don't think it's that high, but it's greater than 10%.)
I have no problem with there being a safety net. A temporary helping hand for those that are caught in situations not of their own making. But a great many people have figured out how to work these programs as a way of life and that is unacceptable.
Ishmael
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,321
Yes the numbers are in the millions that is to be expected when you have a nation that numbers in the hundreds of millions. The cost is in the billions, but that's ultimately meaningless in a country that measures it's expenditures not in billions but in trillions.
I have no idea what percent of recipients are fraudelent. But I accept that a certain percent of them are. I'm curious how your certain it's more than 1 in 10. That sounds a bit higher than is plausible but it could be true. The reality is that when it comes to fraud it a balancing act. How much money would you have to pay people to head in an clean up the fraud and is it cheaper to ignore it. (Though I suppose you could make the argument that it's sort of two birds with one stone since you have to employ people to search for fraud and that in and of itself will decrease the number of people without jobs. But that's getting dangerously close to paying men to dig holes and fill them back in.)
I'm sure there are a great many people who have figured out how to milk the system. And I share your disgust with them but nobody seems to have figured out a way to dispose of the bathwater and keep the baby. You yourself have pointed out numerous times that ultimately automation comes for us all.
Ultimately as I think you'll agree any job whatsoever that can be broken down into parts can be done by a machine. The majority of them ultimately better than humans. No robot will ever have shaky hands, or get sweat in it's eyes during surgery. It will never forget a tool inside a patient (seriously google that when you get bored. It happens sufficiently frequently to be disturbing). Granted surgeons are one of the safer jobs but they aren't safe. Hell just remote surgery would be devastating. Dr. Carson being able to work on patients on seven continents from the White House will be possible soon enough. Low level scrubs are gonna get screwed even faster. But that's in the long term.
In the immediate sense we all outsource things we cannot or prefer not to do to others in society. Whether essentially everybody who isn't an 18-30 year old male pawning off their defense to a statistically small chunk of males (and females) who are in that age bracket or taking the trash farther away than the curb.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
The cost of the ultra-rich not ponying up there share by exploiting tax havens and loopholes is in the billions and it takes far less of them. The ultra-rich with their affluenza defences and the welfare frauds are two sides of the same coin.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
No. A just society, you exchange your labor for the labor or goods of others. Expending your labor on behalf of another and getting nothing from them in exchange is slavery.
As far as it being a "few" freeloaders, nearly half of all so called federal taxpayers receive more in their refund than they paid. The IRS is now the largest organzation on the planet transferring actual money from real taxpayers (or actual borrowed money) to other individual citizens. Tax "refunds" are now welfare.
